These are challenging times for higher education. UK institutions are beset by frozen fees, declining international student numbers and sharp increases in the cost of delivery. Colleges in the US are closing, whilst Canadian and Australian institutions are grappling with international student income drops.
Things have to change and someone has to change them. In the case of Universities, the vision for change comes from the Vice-Chancellor and their circle of senior leaders. Although there’s been an increase in ‘change’ managers and ‘transformation’ personnel in institutions, it is the VC’s vision which is implemented.
VC’s hold a great deal of power and are often surrounded by colleagues who support them fully. Theoretically, they can impose change albeit adhering to the various systems of governance designed to maintain institutional standards.
Just forcing through change is generally a bad idea though. It either shows that the changes are not well thought-out or that senior managers are not concerned about bringing staff with them. Instead, change needs to be based on trust. Staff need to have belief in the changes taking place, be treated honestly, and still feel safe to express their opinions within the institution despite the disruption.
Even with a new change project, similar initiatives may have been tried in the past and hostility is anticipated. In such cases, before considering how to build trust, we’ve found it useful to ask where a lack of trust could have come from. Focussing on a lack of trust in a senior figure such as the VC, we’ve observed several scenarios.
The first is the VC who has been in post for a number of years and having avoided making tough decisions in the past, now has no other option other than to make change. This could be restructuring, making redundancies or closing departments. In this instance, a lack of trust comes from staff blaming the VC for not doing the right thing in the past. The logic is that had they made better decisions before, the institution would not be in the unfavourable position it is now.
The second is the long-standing VC who has overseen a number of change initiatives in the past, some successful, some not. In this instance, the lack of trust comes from an absence of belief in the need for another change with thoughts of ‘here we go again’ being common.
The third is a new VC who is potentially better placed to deliver change. The responsibility for past change is born by the previous incumbent and the new VC may even be able to materialise on past mistakes. However, staff often research the new VC’s past performance and may even speak to colleagues at their previous institution. They may well share this information such that the new VC is not starting from a neutral position of trust.
Making change based on trust depends upon open communication, consistent actions and transparency. Open communication involves providing staff with the full picture and all of the information related to change in a timely and accessible manner. Executing consistent actions means doing things which are understood, that don’t come as a complete shock and can be justified. Transparency encompasses providing the reasons for change backed up by relevant data and solid reasoning.
To build the necessary trust for change then, awareness of the present situation is the first step. Enacting open communication, consistent actions and transparency then follows.
