Understanding Institutional Transformation: the Restructuring Of

UNDERSTANDING INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION: THE RESTRUCTURING OF

FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY

YARBRAH T. PEEPLES

(Under the Direction of Libby V. Morris)

ABSTRACT

The economic recession of 2007 forced many higher education institutions across the country to restructure; however, public Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were disproportionally affected, specifically by the decline in governmental appropriations to higher education. In Florida, state appropriations declined to all of the four-year public institutions, but Florida A&M University (FAMU), the state’s only public HBCU, was severely affected experiencing $35 million in reductions to their state allocations between 2007-2010.

The purpose of this study was to explore academic and administrative restructuring at a public, historically Black, doctoral/research university. This study investigates the impetus for and implications of restructuring at FAMU between the initiation of the restructuring planning process in September of 2010 through the approval of the restructuring plan in April 2011. The activities were intense over these months and an analysis of documents and interviews produced a rich case study of institutional transformation.

INDEX WORDS: academic restructuring, administrative restructuring, higher education,

change in higher education, organizational change, institutional change

UNDERSTANDING INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION: THE RESTRUCTURING OF

FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY

YARBRAH T. PEEPLES

B.S., Florida A&M University, 2004

M.B.A., Florida A&M University, 2004

M.S., Florida State University, 2007

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

ATHENS, GEORGIA

2012

Yarbrah T. Peeples

UNDERSTANDING INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION: THE RESTRUCTURING OF

FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY

YARBRAH T. PEEPLES

Major Professor: Libby V. Morris

Committee: James Hearn Sheila Slaughter

Electronic Version Approved:

Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2012

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my granny, Ruthie Mae Quarterman.

I thank God for you and I love you more than you will ever know!

Special Thanks

To my family: Mom (Ethel Robinson), Dad, (Greg Davis), Sister (Kenitra Robinson), Aunty

(LaFredia Small), and Uncle (Dwight Small). Thank you for a lifetime of love, support,

encouragement and prayers. I am blessed beyond measure to have a family that has always

believed in and supported my dreams. I would not be here without each of you.

Your love carried me through!

To my friends (in alphabetical order): Corliss Allen, Kiwanis Burr, Erin Connelly, Shakira

Crandol, Carl Edwards, Christian Edwards, Estella Gray, Jeff Rodgers, Brandi Tatum, Natalie

Tindall. Thank you for your support, listening ears, laughs, encouragement, prayers and love.

Your friendship made the difference!

Thank you all for everything. I share this accomplishment with each of you because I would not

have made it without your collective support. I love you more than words can express!

This process has been the most challenging experience of my life. There were many days that I

couldn’t see how I would make it…but God. Thank you Jesus for seeing me through this!

“For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” -Jeremiah 29:11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my committee members who have been generous with their time and patience as I have developed and written this work. Thank you to Dr. Sheila Slaughter and

Dr. James Hearn for agreeing to serve on my committee. Thank you to Dr. J. Douglas Toma who was supportive of my research from my very first day in IHE. I wish you were here to see me finish this journey. A very special thank you to Dr. Libby Morris who served as my dissertation chair, my advisor, and my mentor throughout the duration of my IHE experience. I would have never made it without you! I admire your leadership and want to be just like you when I grow up!

I would also like to thank the administrators, faculty, staff and students of Florida A&M

University that participated in this research. Without your honesty and transparency I would not have been able to complete this research.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... v

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Background of the Problem ...... 1

Purpose ...... 5

Study Site ...... 6

Research Design ...... 6

Significance of Study ...... 8

Organization of Study ...... 9

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 10

Historically Black Colleges and Universities ...... 10

Restructuring ...... 21

Theoretical Framework ...... 32

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 41

Purpose of Study ...... 41

Research Questions ...... 42

vii

Research Design ...... 42

Study Site: Florida A&M University ...... 44

Data Collection ...... 48

Data Analysis ...... 50

Research Quality ...... 51

Research Context ...... 54

4 RESTRUCTURING: REVIEW OF THE CONTEXT AND CHANGES ...... 56

The Restructuring Context ...... 56

The Restructuring Changes ...... 68

5 RESTRUCTURING REFLECTIONS: EXPLORING PROCESS & OUTCOMES. . 83

Exploring the Restructuring Process ...... 83

Exploring Restructuring Outcomes ...... 104

6 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ...... 121

Implications ...... 129

Future Studies ...... 132

REFERENCES ...... 134

APPENDICES

A FAMU DOCUMENTS ...... 148

B FAMU LEADERSHIP LIST ...... 149

C INTERVIEW REQUEST ...... 150

D CONSENT FORM ...... 151

E INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...... 152

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: 2007 Top 10 HBCU Federal S&E Fund Receipts ...... 14

Table 2: Top 5 Endowments of PWI and HBCUs 2010-2011 ...... 16

Table 3: Florida A&M University Restructuring Timeline ...... 57

Table 4: Florida A&M University Strategic Initiatives ...... 59

Table 5: Selected Strategic Goals and Strategies ...... 60

Table 6: The Florida Board of Governor’s Strategic Priorities ...... 61

Table 7: Florida A&M University Work Plan Key Institutional Priorities for 2011 ...... 62

Table 8: General Revenue Budget Reduction to Florida A&M University ...... 64

Table 9: Florida A&M University Foundation Endowment Net Assets ...... 65

Table 10: Florida A&M University Tuition and Enrollment 2005-2011 ...... 66

Table 11: Florida A&M University Budget Reduction Guiding Principles 2008-2011 ...... 67

Table 12: Florida A&M University’s Stimulus Funds ...... 68

Table 13: Additional Restructuring Guidelines 2011 ...... 69

Table 14: Florida A&M University Restructuring Staff and Cost Reduction ...... 70

Table 15: School of Graduate Studies Activity Reassignment ...... 72

Table 16: School of General Studies Activity Reassignment ...... 73

Table 17: Florida A&M University Institutional Peer and Aspirational Institutions ...... 75

Table 18: Florida A&M University Colleges and Schools Reorganization ...... 76

Table 19: Florida A&M University Academic Program Elimination ...... 79

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Florida A&M University Educational and General Revenues 2007-2008 ...... 63

Figure 2: Florida A&M University Educational and General Revenues 2010-2011 ...... 64

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem

American higher education institutions have found themselves in a progressively challenging environment in the last three decades (Bartell, 2003). As quickly as higher education costs have risen, public confidence in higher education and its value has diminished. Higher education institutions have faced swelling pressures from political, economic, social, cultural and technological forces to respond to the rapidly changing environment (Gumport, 2000). Debates surround the public versus the private good of higher education. Governments question public support and return on investment; students and parents ask whether college degrees are worth the steadily rising costs and debt; and communities raise concerns about how institutions engage and serve the public. State and federal budgets have tightened, endowments have shrunken, and public colleges and universities have experienced major cuts in their budget allocations.

Additionally, higher education institutions are being challenged to “keep pace with knowledge change” (Gumport, 2000). Institutions must balance their need to respond to changes in the academic landscape and also respond to market forces. As competition for talented students and faculty has increased, so have the costs for campus improvements and technological infrastructure. At a time when institutions needed additional funding for faculty and student

2 recruitment and institutional upgrades, state funding, impacted by the recession in late 2007, began to significantly decrease.

Allocations to higher education are one of four components of state government budgets.

The other large recipients include K-12 education, public assistance/welfare, and healthcare

(Serban, 1998). These components constantly compete for public funds. In times of economic decline higher education is extensively scrutinized and funding is disproportionately reduced

(Hovey, 1999). The decline in allocations occurs because higher education is considered the only area of discretionary income in state budgets (Burke, 2002).

The economic downturn affected all U.S. colleges and universities, but Historically Black

Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were disproportionally impacted, specifically by the decline in governmental appropriations to higher education. Public HBCUs have a history of funding inequality dating back to the late 19th century when compared with public Predominately White

Institutions (PWIs) at the state and federal levels (Kujovich, 1994; Sav, 1997; Minor, 2008). This inequality is a direct reflection of the history of discrimination and segregation in the U.S. at large and particularly in the American educational system. Though the federal government, through the Second Morrill Land-grant College Act of 1890, provided funds for the establishment of separate but equal higher education institutions for blacks, the disparity between public HBCUs and public PWIs persisted and was most pronounced in the land-grant institutions

(Kujovich, 1994; Stefkovich & Less, 1994). According to Sav (2010, p. 296) “in 1999 approximately 17% and in 2006 approximately 12.6% of the lower state funding support of publicly controlled HBCUs compared to predominately white state institutions could be attributed to fiscal discrimination in the allocation of state funds.”

Though the overall inequality in funding between public HBCUs and PWIs has decreased over time, differences still exist. While some states allocate funding to HBCUs at or above the levels of PWIs, not all do. Though federal funding sources compensate for some of the inequalities

(Sav, 1997), as state and federal funding decline, HBCUs struggle to identify new funding sources.

HBCUs also tend to struggle more than PWIs financially during periods of economic decline due to their large enrollment of low-income students and their low endowments

(Gasman, 2009). In the 2006-2007 fiscal year approximately 90% of HBCU students received financial aid. With such a large population of low-income students, tuition prices at HBCUs are often kept low and can be as much as 50% less than at PWIs (Gasman). With lower state appropriations and lower tuition revenues HBCUs have very little flexibility during challenging financial times.

Endowments at HBCUs tend to be much smaller than their PWI counterparts. Many of these endowments became even smaller during the recession due to funds that were tied to the financial markets. While most institutions use fundraising to raise capital lost from declining state and federal appropriations and limited tuition revenues, HBCUs are again faced with a challenge. According to Gasman et al (2010) fundraising is a major undertaking for HBCUs because most of them don’t possess the abundant infrastructure, staffing, or alumni with the access to wealth. Additionally, as the economic decline extends and more higher education systems face financial exigency, public HBCUs are some of the institutions hit the hardest because most were already underfunded (Abelman & Dalessandro, 2009).

Today there are 105 HBCUs, and although they account for merely 3% all U.S. higher education institutions they enroll approximately 16% and graduate over 20% of black students

(Gasman, 2009). HBCUs both historically and contemporarily, serve as an access point to postsecondary education for black students, particularly the first-generation, low-income, and academically underprepared. Yet, despite their considerable contributions to higher education,

HBCUs consistently fight for legitimacy and survival. These institutions are plagued with multiple issues; primary among these is the decline of funding.

The economic recession of 2007 had a profound and crippling affect on state appropriations to all of the four-year public institutions in Florida, and specifically to Florida

Agricultural and Mechanical University (Florida A&M University; FAMU), the state’s only public HBCU. While appropriations began declining in fiscal year 2007-2008, the sharpest decline occurred between fiscal year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, followed by an additional reduction in fiscal year 2010-2011 which was also severe. In 2007 state allocations contributed approximately 70% of FAMU’s educational and general revenue. By 2010 state allocations decreased to approximately 54% of FAMU’s educational and general revenue. Overall, FAMU experienced over $35 million in reductions in their state allocations between 2007-2010.

Also during this time FAMU was managing several challenges including a threat to the university’s accreditation due to financial mismanagement, leadership changes, and a declining public image. With institutional legitimacy and in many cases institutional survival threatened, change at the institutional level was increasingly necessary. According to Hearn (2008), belying the traditional view of campuses as changing only slowly and at the margins…leaders are pursuing fundamental rather than incremental changes in their institutions’ core structures, policies, and practices” (p.1). Changes like these can be found in the restructuring process.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to explore academic and administrative restructuring at a public, historically black, four-year, doctoral/research institution of higher education. This study will investigate the impetus for and implications of restructuring at FAMU between the initiation of the restructuring planning process in September of 2010 through April 2011 when the restructuring plan was approved.

This study will examine the academic and administrative changes at the university including: elimination of instructional units, reorganization of colleges and schools, elimination of academic programs, administrative personnel reduction, and the creation of several technological, administrative and academic programs and offices. Attention will be given to the pressures, both internal and external, that led to the restructuring decision and how and why decisions were made throughout the restructuring planning process. Additionally, attention will be given to implications, both potential and realized, for the institutional culture and specifically the institutional mission.

This study seeks to understand the larger question, “Why and how do institutions restructure?” In doing so I ask the following questions specifically:

• How and why did Florida A&M University restructure?

• What internal and external pressures lead to the restructuring decision?

• How did internal and external pressures affect decision making in the restructuring

process?

• How did restructuring affect the institutional culture, specifically the university mission?

• What are the lessons for other institutions, specifically distinct institutions considering

institutional changes such as a restructuring process?

Study Site

FAMU is one of eleven universities in the State University System of Florida and is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. It was founded in 1887 as the

State Normal College for Colored Students in the state’s capital, Tallahassee, Florida. FAMU is an urban, public, land grant, research institution and the only public Historically Black College and University (HBCU) in Florida. FAMU enrolls nearly 13,000 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students, making it the nation’s largest HBCU. It is also one of the largest not-for- profit producers of African American baccalaureate degrees and boasts the largest public HBCU endowment at over $100 million.

Between 2007-2010 FAMU experienced over $35 million in cuts to the budget via reduced state appropriations. On September 23, 2010 the FAMU Board of Trustees approved the development of a comprehensive restructuring plan entitled “Excellence in a New Era:

Developing the Millennial FAMU.” Less than six months later, on April 7, 2011, the FAMU

Board approved the final restructuring plan. This plan outlined the institutional changes, both academic and administrative, that were to occur between 2011-2014 in an effort to increase efficiency and productivity and achieve the goal of strengthening the university’s academic programs in a climate of fiscal constraint.

Research Design

This study examined the internal and external pressures associated with initiating change and the decision making involved in the planning of the university restructuring process. FAMU was selected for this study using a purposive sampling approach (Chein, 1981) to develop an

“information rich case” (Patton, 1990). This nonprobablistic sampling approach is used when

7 solving qualitative problems. The researcher selects a sample from which more can be learned while attempting to “discover, understand, and gain insight” (Merriam, 1998, p. 61).

Case study methodology was best suited for the purposes of this study because it is used for in-depth examination of contemporary phenomena within a real-life context and it attempts to answer research questions more holistically by including the perspectives of insiders, outsiders and the researcher within the research (Creswell, 2009; Yin; 2009). At FAMU these perspectives included those of senior administrators, faculty, board members and students. These perspectives were gained through the use interviews and documents. Together these data will provide a deeper understanding of the restructuring process and emphasize the context for the decision-making process.

In order to establish both credibility and validity and to gain a holistic understanding of the restructuring process data and methods were triangulated in this research study. Data triangulation was implemented by the use of various data sources, with the goal of corroborating the same fact or phenomenon (Yin, 2009). These data sources included: interviews and documents like memos, letters, university plans, institutional budgets and focus group data.

Methodological triangulation was implemented in order to gain information about the financial, political, and social context of the restructuring process. The methodologies included document retrieval and multiple interviews with individuals either directly or indirectly involved in the restructuring process.

To interpret findings research on HBCUs and restructuring was used to inform and expand understanding of the change process at the case site. Both institutional theory and resource dependence theory provided the theoretical underpinning used in the analysis. Resource dependency theory provided the framework to examine the role of resources from the external

8 environment in organizational survival. Institutional theory provided the framework needed to assess the role of the institutionalized external environment and the role of isomorphism in achieving institutional legitimacy.

Significance of Study

In 2001 an ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Kezar (2001) summarized the recent research and conceptualizations of organizational change in higher education. She noted that much of the research on change focused on the “what and how” of change and little research focused on the “why” of change; yet, understanding the sources and forces of the change process are critical in change analysis (Kezar, 2001). Sources/forces of change are typically categorized as either stemming from the internal or external environment (Burnes, 1996; Kezar, 2001;

Rajagopalan &Spreitzer, 1997). While the interaction between the organization and the external environment is considered the main source of change, internal conditions may also create an impetus for change.

This study will investigate the impetus for and implications of academic and administrative restructuring. Although several studies have focused on restructuring generally

(Gumport, 2000; Gumport & Chun, 1999; Gumport & Pusser, 1996;1997), few studies have used an HBCU as the primary institutional focus. Though change occurs at all institutions, I have chosen Historically Black Colleges and Universities as the institutional focus for this study for the following reasons:

• There is little research on change at Historically Black Colleges and Universities

• The founding and evolution of HBCUs position them as underfunded, under-resourced,

and with students who in some cases are underprepared. These institutions have fought

for both legitimacy and sustainability since their inception. This history may have a role

in the initiation of change and in the decisions made in the change (restructuring) process.

• HBCUs cater to a specific population and have a specific mission and accelerated change

has the potential to impact their distinctiveness.

• Despite several contemporary challenges these institutions have survived when other

distinctive institutions have not. Potential findings from this research may provide

strategies that will help other HBCUs and other distinctive colleges (Minority Serving

Institutions and Single-sex Institutions).

Organization of Study

This study is organized in five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the restructuring topic. Additionally, it highlights the content of the study, emphasizing the purpose, research questions, and methodology. Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature used to frame the study. It includes a review of research on HBCUs, restructuring, institutional theory and resource dependence theory. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the research methodology including the research design, study site, and data collection procedures. Chapter 4 describes the context for restructuring and the restructuring changes. Chapter 5 explores the process and outcomes of the restructuring process. Chapter 6 concludes the study by providing an overview of the findings and implications for practical application and research on restructuring.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Historically Black Colleges and Universities

The Higher Education Act of 1965 defined Historically Black Colleges and Universities

(HBCUs) as “any historically black college or university that was established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans” (White House Initiative for HBCUs, 2012). HBCUs have served as the primary institutions focused on the education of black students. HBCUs are a distinct set of institutions founded in the mid 1800s to educate freed slaves following the end of the Civil War (Anderson, 1988). These institutions initially emerged as private normal schools funded by white philanthropists and specific sects of the black

Christian church. Public HBCUs emerged around the same time period but most did not expand until the 1890s when the Second Morrill Act provided funds and land specifically for HBCUs to provide blacks with agricultural and industrial education.

HBCUs have produced some of the nations’ foremost scholars, activists, and leaders, including Martin Luther King, Jr. (Morehouse College), Oprah Winfrey (Tennessee State

University), Marian Wright Edelman (Spelman College), and Andrew Young (Howard

University). Additionally HBCUs, both historically and contemporarily, serve as an access point to postsecondary education for black students, particularly the first-generation, low-income, and

11 academically underprepared (Gasman et al, 2010). HBCUs also have a history of success in sending black students to graduate and professional schools.

Today there are 105 HBCUs, and although they account for merely 3% of the nations’ higher education institutions they educate approximately 16% and graduate over 20% of black students (Gasman, 2009). HBCUs are responsible for approximately 35% of black graduates in, chemistry, astronomy, biology, mathematics, and physics; half of all black teachers, 24 % of all black graduates in science and engineering; and serve as the institution of origin for nearly one- third of all black Ph.D. graduates in science and engineering (Nelms, 2010). While HBCUs have had considerable success in increasing both the access and success of black students at the undergraduate and graduate levels, they face several challenges, which have raised questions regarding the legitimacy and sustainability of HBCUs within the contemporary U.S. higher education system.

Contemporary Challenges Facing Historically Black Colleges and Universities

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are a distinct set of institutions within the U.S. higher education systems. Since 1837, when the first HBCU, Cheney State

University, was founded in Pennsylvania these institutions have made substantive contributions in providing to higher education and graduating African Americans. Yet, despite these considerable contributions, HBCUs consistently fight for legitimacy and survival. This struggle is compounded by their historical mission of open and near-open access, challenges with maintaining accreditation, declining institutional funding, limited capacity in fundraising, increasing competitiveness around diversity issues, and the pursuit of prestige through rankings.

The HBCU Mission

The legitimacy of the historical HBCU mission to provide access to higher education to black students primarily through teaching is constantly questioned. HBCU detractors suggest the mission is outdated and divisive. They cite the continued emphasis on the education of black students, the lack of robust research, and the use of an open access admissions model and less rigorous admission standards to support these arguments.

The mission of the HBCU has been questioned virtually from its’ beginning almost 200 years ago. The historical mission of the HBCU is distinctive and varies from PWIs because it focused on providing blacks with an opportunity for education that they were being denied at

PWIs in the 19th century through the last quarter of the 20th century. By the end of the Civil War nearly 4 million slaves were freed and schools for blacks were established and supported by white philanthropists, black churches, and the Freeman’s Bureau, a federal agency created to assist with the transition of newly freed slaves (Gasman, 2010). It is important to note that while they referred to these institutions as “colleges” most of them educated students at the primary and secondary levels because some of the students could not read (Anderson, 1988). According to Anderson (1988) black colleges accepted all students who wanted an education. This focus on opportunity led HBCUs to become the first open access institutions (Brown et al, 2004).

The dedication to educating these individuals stemmed from the idea of “race uplift,” an idea that supported education as the opportunity for blacks to achieve parity in American society.

By becoming educated, blacks could become leaders and ensure that other blacks had opportunities. Today, many black colleges still offer open access admission policies or less competitive admission standards. While there are many HBCUs that have changed this practice,

13 nearly all HBCUs maintain commitment to providing opportunities for black students at varying academic levels through practices such as remediation and supplemental instruction.

HBCUs are often criticized, and many suffer, from their lack of emphasis on research.

These institutions have been slow to incorporate research in their mission and this has led to many of them missing out on lucrative federal grant opportunities (Brown et al, 2004). But, expanding the mission to include research is not simply a matter of desire. These institutions were never founded or funded for the purpose of research. Rather, three influential groups sponsored instructional activities for blacks: black missionary philanthropists who believed in liberal arts education, northern white philanthropists who also believed in liberal arts education, and white industrial philanthropists that believed in vocational training (Anderson, 1988).

Because the industrial philanthropists provided larger and more enduring funding and because of the federal investment in black land-grant institutions through the Second Morrill Land Grant

Act of 1890, the bulk of educational funds were directed to teaching trades and other forms of manual labor to the black students. However, the dedication to infusing liberal arts into black education was continually advocated by prominent black educators such as W.E.B. DuBois, and eventually the HBCU mission had two foci, both learning and doing.

By the end of the 20th century HBCUs became more involved in scientific research, realizing how necessary it was in order to access federal funding. By fiscal year 2007 78 HBCUs received federal science and engineering (S&E) funds. Though nearly 75% of HBCUs were receiving federal support for their research, HBCU funding trails far behind PWIs. In fiscal year

2007 approximately 1100 PWIs shared $28 billion in S&E funding (approximately $25 billion in research and development funding) while the 78 HBCUs shared a combined $406 million

(approximately $235 million in research and development funding) (National Science

Foundation, 2009). Also, HBCUs suffered disproportionate declines in their funding due to the economic downturn. While PWI’s saw federal S&E funding drop by 0.4%, HBCUs’ funding declined by 8.6% (Stripling, 2009). Additionally, federal research support was concentrated for

HBCUs, much like PWIs, with the top 10 HCBUs in 2005 receiving 52.7% of the funding

(Matthews, 2008). Inequalities in access to federal funding for research presents a contemporary challenge for all institutions, including HBCUs which have limited or no access to institutional support.

Table 1

2007 Top 10 HBCU Federal S&E Fund Recipients

Institution S&E funding 1 Howard University $32,481,000 2 Meharry Medical College $25,378,000 3 Southern University and A&M College (all campuses) $23,428,000 4 Morehouse School of Medicine $23,288,000 5 Jackson State University $22,559,000 6 Tuskegee University $20,191,000 7 North Carolina A&T State University $19,798,000 8 Florida A&M University $15,756,000 9 Alabama A&M University $13,344,000 10 Tennessee State University $12,678,000 SOURCE: National Science Foundation Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges and Nonprofit Institutions, 2007.

Accreditation

According to Gasman (2008), one of the leading researchers on HBCUs, accreditation remains a central issue of concern for HBCUs. Most of the HBCUs are located in the southern part of the United States, making them a part of the Southern Association of Colleges and

Schools (SACS) regional accreditation organization. Accreditation is important and necessary to all higher education institutions because it is not only linked to institutional legitimacy and

15 reputation, but also tied to federal funding for students. Since the implementation of the 1952

Readjustment Assistance Act, federal financial aid is only given to students who attend accredited institutions.

Accreditation is granted to institutions based on their financial stability, endowments, faculty credentials, and curricular integrity, among other variables. However, the primary challenge for most HBCUs is financial stability. According to Brown and Freeman (2004) between 1989 and 2007 nearly half of the 20 institutions that lost accreditation with SACS were

HBCUs. Losing accreditation results in the loss of federal funding, the departure of students and faculty, and in many cases the closing of an institution.

Funding/Fundraising

HBCUs have never been funded on par with PWIs at the state or federal levels (Sav,

1997; Minor, 2008). Additionally, as the economic decline extends and more higher education systems face financial exigency, public HBCUs are some of the institutions hit the hardest, because most of them were already underfunded, have lower tuition prices, and smaller endowments (Abelman & Dalessandro, 2009; Gasman et al, 2010).

Endowments at HBCUs tend to be much smaller than their PWI counterparts. Only three

HBCU endowments are in the top 100, Howard University, Spelman College, and Hampton

University (Gasman, 2010). For fiscal year 2010 the largest PWI endowment was Harvard

University with approximately $27.6 billion. The largest HBCU endowment for the same time period was Howard University with approximately $399.6 million (Lederman, 2011, January).

Table 2

Top 5 Endowments of PWIs and HBCUs 2010-2011

PWI 2010 Endowment HBCU 2010 Endowment ($000) ($000) 1 Harvard University $27,557,404 1 Howard University $399,678

2 Yale University $16,652,000 2 Spelman $295,220

3 Princeton University $14,391,450 3 Hampton $212,712

4 The University of $14,052,220 4 Florida A&M $96,154 Texas System University 5 Stanford $13,851,115 5 Meharry Medical $90,659 College Source: National Association of College and University Business Officers-Commonfund Institute 2011

HBCUs’ small endowments reflect the challenge these institutions have with fundraising.

HBCUs often lack the infrastructure and staff needed to undertake annual giving and capital campaigns. Additionally, the institutions struggle to engage alumni who either give to other charitable organizations like religious institutions or who lack the capital to contribute to fundraising campaigns (Gasman et al, 2010). Additionally, institutions must be sure to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of gift solicitation because some efforts cost the institution more than the value of the gift (Hearn, 2003).

Diversity

Over the last two decades, diversity in higher education emerged as a gauge for institutional prestige and institutional culture at PWIs. However, for HBCUs diversity can be problematic. These institutions, founded with the goal of educating black students, found themselves in a predicament following the end of segregation. As blacks were admitted into

PWIs, many people, including black students and parents, began to question the usefulness and

17 quality of black institutions (Gasman et al, 2010). Thus, enrollments began to decline. Today,

HBCUs enroll about 16% of all black colleges students (Gasman, 2009). While enrollment is solid at HBCUs, the student quality at some institutions has been altered because many of the high achieving black students now choose to attend PWIs. Today, HBCUs must compete with

PWIs for the best and brightest black students. This can be challenging for HBCUs who lack many of the resources their PWI counterparts have like lucrative financial aid packages, internships, strong technological infrastructures, and state of the art residence halls and dining facilities.

To compensate for declining black enrollment, many public HBCUs have been forced, via court mandates, or chosen, due to pressures from empty classrooms, to increase non-black enrollment. Between 1980 and 1990 white enrollment at HBCUs increased by 10,000 and by

1995 it reach 35,000 students and has remained near that number for several years (Gasman et al,

2007). Though HBCUs have always accepted whites, many institutional leaders are concerned by the potential transdemography that could occur. In fact, since the 1960s, 2 HBCUs have been transformed into PWIs, Bluefield State University and West Virginia State University (Brown et al, 2004).

An additional concern is how HBCUs can attract white students. A study on HBCUs that have been successful in attracting white students found that scholarships, strong programs, and programs in competitive fields were some of the successful strategies used to attract white students (Conrad et al, 1997). However, increasing white student recruitment has received a great deal of backlash from HBCU alumni who feel scholarship dollars and marketing dollars should be directed towards black students.

The Pursuit of Prestige

The pursuit of prestige in higher education has accelerated in the last fifteen years and can largely be attributed to the introduction and adoption of classification and ranking systems in higher education. Rankings such as the U.S. News and World Report, Forbes, and Princeton

Review are important because institutions are competing for faculty and students based on intangibles such as image and because rankings often connect to resource providers (Deephouse,

2000). In the case of higher education these resource providers include legislators that allocate state funds, foundations, the federal government, philanthropists that provided funds to institutions by way of charitable gifts and grants, and students and parents who provide funds by paying tuition. Researchers have noted that rankings are “sources of institutional isomorphic pressures” because they influence organizations to conform to ranking criteria in order to receive the prestige associated with a high position (Martins, 2005). Colleges and universities, in attempt to increase their rankings, make institutional changes that align with ranking criteria in order to improve their standings and appear more prestigious.

The definition of prestige, as it is used in this study, is based upon the work of Brewer,

Gates, and Goldman (2002). Their view suggests that prestige is neither absolute nor tangible and is instead a positive institutional asset that is measured relative to other institutions, defined by insider desires and depreciates slowly. I add to this definition that prestige is a level of respect and high regard from others that is the result of sustained success and achievement. Higher rankings often suggest greater legitimacy and prestige, which can result in institutions attracting better students and faculty and increasing resources. Unfortunately, HBCUs rarely perform well in rankings with PWIs. Spelman College, is the highest ranked HBCU on any of the U.S. News and World Report (2012) lists in 2012 ranking 62nd among national liberal arts colleges.

According to Morphew and Baker (2004) in the 1970s the Carnegie classification system was adopted and considered the “prestige barometer.” The Carnegie system classified higher education institutions based on a set of variables that correlated to prestige predictions (Brewer,

Gates, & Goldman, 2002). These variables included measures like the number of federal research grants and the selectivity in the admissions process (Morphew & Baker, 2004).

In response to this classification systems institutions began to engage in prestige building activities. These institutions interpreted the Carnegie system classifications as an indication of institutional prestige (Brewer, Gates, & Goldman, 2002). Their response to the classification was to attempt to change their position within their respective categories. The Carnegie system classified institutions in descending (based on federal research funding, and degree offering levels) order: Research, Doctoral, Comprehensive, Masters, and Baccalaureate. In an attempt to increase prestige, institutions set out to increase their classification levels by increasing research funding, offering additional graduate degrees, and other prestige building strategies (Morphew &

Baker, 2004; Brewer, Gates, & Goldman, 2002). The Carnegie classification was revised in 2000 to include more categories and additional institutional characteristics (O’Meara, 2007). Though this system waned in use as a measure of institutional prestige, the ranking game in higher education had just begun and the U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) and their annual ranking of colleges and universities became the premier ranking list in higher education in the mid-1990’s (Meredith, 2004).

Rankings provide “ready-made evaluations of organizations’ relative standings” which parents and students often use to identify institutional quality rather than assessing organizations for themselves (Rindova, et. al, 2005, pg. 1038; Rindova & Fombrun, 1999). Additionally, institutions with more prestige often garner more attention, and henceforth are ranked higher

20 than others within their organizational field (Rindova, et al, 2005). Parents, students, and the larger public often equate the rank of an institution in the USNWR as a measure of prestige; therefore, institutions continuously strive to increase their position (Machung, 1998; Monks &

Ehrenberg, 1999).

HBCUs often rank lower than other institutions due to issues like smaller endowments, less emphasis on research, and less competitive students. FAMU, for example, is not listed among the top 100 higher education institutions by the U.S. News and World Report (2012) but is described as a tier two institution. However, FAMU ranks tenth among HBCUs and first among public HBCUs (U.S. News and World Report). Many ranking systems fail to measure the achievements of HBCUs, such as the value they add and the value students receive for the low cost of education (Gasman et al, 2010). Additionally, HBCUs have a “harder” job as they educate many of the nation’s first-generation, low-income, underrepresented, and underprepared students on fewer tuition dollars. Many of the nation’s leading institutions do not take chances on students like those admitted by HBCUs.

As competition for financial resources, students, and faculty increases, HBCUs began to employ strategies like PWIs to appear prestigious in the mind of the public (Sims, 1994). This behavior presents an immense challenge for HBCUs. If they were to follow the same “checklist” many predominately white institutions use to pursue prestige, it would mean an increased interest in high achieving students and faculty who spend more time on research than teaching. This approach to prestige comes into direct conflict with the HBCU historical mission of access.

HBCUs that traditionally focused on providing higher education opportunities to low-income, underrepresented, and first generation students may slowly desert practices that support these populations in favor of alternative practices that will attract high achievers, diversity and

21 research dollars (Harley, 2001). This may result in HBCUs adopting prestige building practices such as reducing need-based aid in favor of merit aid, discontinuing remedial education, and raising admission requirements (Clarke, 2007). In seeking prestige, HBCUs, which were once solely focused on the needs of black students and the black community, could alter their missions to emphasize diversity, research, technology, global initiatives, and industry partnerships, attributes that assist in enhancing institutional prestige, but may diminish access and opportunity.

The Context for Change and Restructuring

It is evident that Historically Black Colleges and Universities are faced with a plethora of challenges, many of which stem from a history of legal, social, and financial disadvantage.

Today, as higher education at large is impacted by the major economic decline, HBCUs are disproportionally affected. Not only are these already cash-strapped institutions facing ever- shrinking endowments and severe budget cuts, but they are also managing other institutional challenges including technological gaps, financially-needy students, recruiting and retaining new faculty, enhancing research, and diversifying program offerings These challenges position

HBCUs in a state of extreme vulnerability, where both their legitimacy and survival are constantly in question. Change for many of them is not an option; restructuring, is not only necessary, but in many cases, is essential.

Restructuring

The term “restructuring,” a concept extracted from corporate America, gained prominence in the mid-to-late 1990s when the U.S. was engaged in an economic recession.

Much of the research on restructuring in higher education was conducted during this time. After the economy stabilized in the early 2000s, there was a decrease in research on the restructuring

22 topic, but as higher education institutions are again facing severely strained budgets due to the economic recession of late 2007, many are opting to restructure both administratively and academically. This study will contribute to the body of research examining this new wave of restructuring and will build upon the research contributions and literature of higher education restructuring in the late mid-to-late 1990s.

Along with other terms like “retrenchment,” “downsizing,” and “decentralization,” restructuring was used to describe the usually severe “targeted and across the board cuts” enacted by universities in response to reductions in institutional budgets and state and federal appropriations (El-Khawas, 1994; Myers, 1996, pg. 70). While restructuring was initially equated to retrenchment, the two concepts are quite different. The difference lay in the nature of the response to financial shortfalls; retrenchment was “highly responsive to immediate concerns,” while restructuring was “more forward looking” (Myers, 1996, pg. 70).

Rather than a tool for crisis management, restructuring is a managerial strategy grounded in “the tenets of strategic planning-mission reaffirmation, environmental scanning, goal formation, and evaluations and revision” (Myers, 1996, pg.70). Additionally, restructuring considers the role of faculty, administrators, and institutional culture in the decision making process (Morphew, 2000). Finally, restructuring is future focused and views financial crisis as an indicator of fundamental shifts in the external contexts requiring fundamental changes in university operations (Myers, 1996). For the purposes of this study restructuring is defined as,

…an imperative at the nexus of resource constraints, market demands, and technological possibilities. [It is a process in which] university planners are attempting to devise new management strategies and decision processes to facilitate access and quality improvements, as well as to reduce costs through reduction in bureaucracy and the creation of administrative and academic production efficiencies. (Gumport & Pusser, 1997, pg.10).

The Role of the External Environment

The practice of restructuring, along with most institutional changes, is a response to changes in the higher education environment. Gumport and Sporn (1999) identified two categories of environmental pressures that lead to institutional transformations such as restructuring: societal or external pressures including the economy, politics, and technology and institutional pressures including cost, quality, access and effectiveness.

The external environment places a great deal of pressure on institutions. Economic pressures due to drastic reductions in state appropriations to institutions, along with technological pressures from rapid technological upgrades and advancements, and political pressures from the increased involvement of political figures at the local, state, and federal levels all contribute to an external environment that necessitates change for survival.

Instability in the economy often results in uncertainty in state funding for public colleges and universities and once it begins to decline there is very little expectancy that funding from state and federal sources will ever achieve previous levels of stability (Williams, 1995; Gumport

& Pusser, 1997). As state and federal appropriations decrease public institutions are particularly faced with severe financial vulnerability. Campus leaders are faced with identifying new financial resources, reducing budgets, increasing efficiency, privatization, and often restructuring

(Dill & Sporn, 1995; Gumport & Pusser, 1997).

The economy is also placing pressure on colleges and universities to increase productivity and innovation (Gumport & Sporn, 1999). More and more universities are expected to participate in collaborations with other public and private organizations to spawn new products, services, and technologies, to increase institutional revenues, and to stimulate the economy (Goldstein, Maier, & Luger, 1995; Gumport & Sporn, 1999). Additionally, institutions

24 are expected to increase national productivity, and in turn economic well being through education, retraining, and continuing education of the workforce through programs, training services, and new institutional forms (Peterson, & Dill, 1997; Gumport & Sporn).

The political pressures faced by colleges and universities have mounted. As the economy declines, state and federal budgets shrink and college and university allocations are reduced. As one of four components of state government budgets, higher education along with K-12 education, public assistance/welfare, and healthcare constantly compete for public funds. As public funding declines, many institutions increase tuition and fees, which causes great concern from parents, students, and the general public. As college costs rise politicians are increasingly involving themselves in institutional decision making and seeking a greater level of accountability from higher education institutions (Gumport & Sporn, 1999). Some states like

Tennessee and South Carolina have implemented performance funding to link institutional allocations to student outcomes like retention and graduation rates. While other states, like

Florida, have utilized state governing boards and institutional boards of trustees to link campus policies to state priorities (Conner & Rabovsky, 2011).

With the advent and expansion of instructional and information technology higher education institutions face additional pressures. As technology becomes more integral on college campuses, leadership must consider how technology can be leveraged to create new programs, expand cross-campus, cross-institutional collaboration, and create new administrative information systems (Gumport & Sporn 1999). Technology also brings with it the opportunity for collaboration amongst faculty and between faculty and students, distance education, and virtual classrooms. Finally, the impact of technology on institutional information systems has the potential to increase transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness in the management of university

25 information (Green & Gilbert, 1995; Gumport & Sporn, 1999). However, the technology needed to realize all of the opportunities carries a high price tag at a time when resources are scarce.

The Role of the Institutional Environment

According to Gumport and Sporn (1999) pressure from change in external environment often results in the creation of a new institutional environment. Changes in the economy, politics, and technology have developed an overwhelming demand for accountability at universities and colleges. This demand in turn has created an institutional environment where leaders are working to defend and contain costs, improve academic quality, increase effectiveness, and expand access.

The costs of higher education have become an increasing concern over the last few decades. Costs for higher education have been steadily increasing and current concern is the result of stretched federal and state budgets. This has led legislators, taxpayers, parents, and students to question the cost-effective relationship between revenues (student aid, tuition dollars, institutional support) and outcomes (enrollment, learning and graduation) (Altbach, Berdahl, &

Gumport, 2005). Inevitably these questions lead to concerns over the value of education in relation to its costs, especially the cost of tuition. According to Welmann et al (2008) tuition increases at public institutions are partly attributed to the changes in revenue received from the federal and state governments and partly due to privatization and cost cutting. Conversely, tuition increases at private institutions are being driven by competition for students and resources. This competition suggests that students and parents associate prestige, and ultimately quality, with high costs.

As institutions face pressures to contain costs and become more accountable for the management of financial resources, restructuring is often the solution. Administrators attempt to

26 move beyond immediate crisis management and plan strategically for the future. They often employ new management structures, streamline administrative positions and search for new revenue generating opportunities like increasing tuition, forging corporate partnerships and engaging in continuing and online education programs (Guskin,1994; Tolbert, 1985; Gumport and Sporn, 1999).

The quest for quality in higher education has been at the forefront of the accountability movement. Increases in student learning, faculty productivity, program effectiveness and institutional evaluation are seen as essential in assuring that students are receiving a quality education (Peterson & Dill, 1997). This has caused many colleges and universities to implement corporate strategies like Total Quality Management and Continuous Quality Improvement to assess and measure institutional performance.

The quest for institutional effectiveness also contributes to the pressures within the institutional environment. Institutional effectiveness is directly connected to concerns over meeting students needs, employing organizational change strategies and reviewing and implementing the appropriate structures and processes needed to achieve successful outcomes

(Cameron & Whetten, 1996). When the effectiveness of an institution is questioned the result has often been to reorganize or restructure.

The concept of universal access to higher education developed after the end of World

War II with the introduction of the GI Bill. Since then there has been continuous pressure to expand higher education opportunities for low-income students, underrepresented minorities, and adult learners (Kerr, 1994; Gumport & Chun, 1997).

As demands for expanding access continue to rise, institutions are also faced with increased financial pressures limiting their ability to provide financial support to their most challenged student populations (Conner & Rabovsky, 2011).

The external and institutional environment is made up of challenges surrounding the economy, politics, technology, cost, effectiveness, quality and access, and is one that places enormous pressure on PWIs and HBCUs alike. According to Gumport and Sporn (1999, p. 14),

As universities seek to respond to these pressures, we see attempts not only for organizational survival but also for organizational legitimacy. Their adaption process encompass strategies such as reorganization and restructuring, diversification of revenue sources, revised mission statements, a redefined role of the state between supervision and control, redesigned program, evaluation and assessment of faculty, or total quality management.

While PWI struggle to deal with the internal and external pressures, HBCUs are not exempt from this reality. Responding to these pressures is essential for HBCUs because their survival and legitimacy is constantly in question. Restructuring as a response to the internal and external pressures may be even more critical for HBCUs due to their limited funding sources, distinct missions, and underdeveloped technological infrastructures.

Governance and Restructuring

Higher education institutions have long been thought of as the domain of academics, i.e. the faculty. The faculty was the center of the university for decades but significant changes began to occur in the 1970s. Administrators and faculty members saw their professionalism challenged and universities saw their mystique give way to increased criticism, questioning, and calls for more accountability. As oversight, influence, and involvement from external organizations and individuals increased, administration and faculty independence decreased.

College presidents were pressured to be more accountable to students, faculty, alumni, trustees, legislators, coordinating boards, and the public (Ikenberry, 1971). Faculty found themselves

28 restricted by administrative authority and their academic freedom and tenure questioned. During this time there was also a rejection of ad hoc approaches to governance (Ikenberry, 1971). As procedural regulation increased, so did unions for faculty, staff, and graduated students.

In 21st century higher education, the calls for accountability have continued and the university response, in an effort to gain legitimacy, has been to shift more towards corporate and industry processes (Gumport, 2000). This has, in effect, lessened the role of faculty in the decision making process and shifted additional power to administrators. According to Rhoades

(1998) faculty were now “managed professionals” and administrators “managerial professionals.” It was the administrators’ responsibility to manage the relationship between the university and the environment, as this relationship was considered the most important aspect of organizational survival (Gumport, 2000).

University administrators, made up of the president, provost, deans, and upper and middle management, emerged as the primary participants in initiating and managing change efforts like restructuring, as much of what is changed is connected to structures and processes.

This group of administrators has the primary responsibility of managing the internal and external pressures, which include balancing time between securing resources, enhance legitimacy and sustainability, managing institutional finances, aligning with state and university goals, protecting the university mission, and streamlining institutional decision making.

Restructuring Approaches

Contemporary restructuring addresses both academic and administrative reform and extends decision making about academics beyond the faculty to include university administrators

(Gumport, 1993). Recent approaches to restructuring include: re-engineering, privatization, and reconfiguring (Gumport & Pusser, 1997).

Re-engineering is a corporate strategy that was adapted for use in higher education. It involves “rethink[ing] the nature of the work to be done and…redesign[ing] processes as well as culture” (Gumport & Pusser, 1997, pg 11). Re-engineering requires a shift from a “hierarchical bureaucratic” to an “interdependent network” work process (Lembcke, 1994). In this approach administrators make structural changes to address persistent quality problems with the goal of enhancing organizational improvement in the administrative realm of the university (Gumport &

Pusser, 1997). Re-engineering can also occur in the academic realm of the university, but requires “rethinking the educational process itself, the way faculty work, and the standards of educational technology (Pew, 1993; Guskin, 1994, pg. 12). This process can be extremely challenging since concepts like tenure, teaching and learning, and changes in curriculum are not easily changed (Pew, 1993).

Privatization is another approach to restructuring. Privatization is a response to the increased competitiveness in the university environment. Colleges and universities are finding it more challenging to compete with for-profit competitors for many of the university services.

Businesses are able to provide universities with similar auxiliary services for much lower prices

(Gumport & Pusser, 1997). Many for-profit organizations are now providing food services, bookstores, printing, and even housing. Privatization primarily occurs in the administrative realm of the university but more recently aspects of privatization have occurred in the academic realm. Universities have begun to experiment with differential student fees for selected undergraduate, graduate and professional schools. Some institutions have outsourced courses and even participated in mergers (Gumport & Pusser, 1997). However, student tuition and auxiliary revenues remain the greatest sources of privatization (Slaughter & Leslie, 2001).

Reconfiguration is the final approach to restructuring. Reconfiguration aims to “reshape organizational structures in order to facilitate the implementation of re-engineering” (Gumport &

Pusser, 1997, p.14). The ultimate goal of reconfiguration is to enhance the efficiency, response, and flexibility of an organization. An additional aspect of reconfiguration is the management process. Administrators are charged with channeling employee commitment and building consensus around a shared vision. Finally, reconfiguration requires institutions to take on a more corporate form and exploit their core competencies by creating academic research and service profits centers, and regularly assessing the organization mission, and clarifying institutional values. (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Gumport & Pusser,1997).

Restructuring Challenges

There are several challenges associated with restructuring. These challenges include: basing restructuring initiatives on approaches developed in corporate and for-profit environments, issues with academic autonomy, and the changing nature of administrative work

(Gumport & Pusser, 1997).

A primary challenge with restructuring is the tendency to assume corporate restructuring approaches will work in higher education. Corporations are quite different from colleges and universities, which often lack clear, shared goals, have ambiguous missions and hard to define core competencies for which outcomes assessment is difficult (Gumport & Pusser, 1997).

Additionally, assessing efficiency is nearly impossible in a college or university, which has several multi-level goals and varying authority structures.

The threat to academic autonomy is an additional challenge to restructuring. While previous challenges to institutional autonomy were linked to tension between campus and external political actions, contemporary challenges are connected to market pressures and

31 demands (Berdahl, 1990; Altbach, 1994; Slaughter, 1994). Universities are struggling to address increasing pressures for fundamental changes in curriculum to ensure students are educated and trained to prepare them for the global marketplace. Achieving this goal and maintaining a level of control of academic programs is increasingly difficult for higher education institutions as external constituents like the public and corporations desire to set a curriculum that is more workforce oriented, challenging the traditional view of curriculum that favors soft skill development like problem solving and critical thinking.

An additional challenge to restructuring is the changing nature of administrative work.

Specifically, as institutions change, administrators will be held to higher levels of accountability and extended job responsibilities. How well administrators adapt to these changing roles may be instrumental in how they are able to make decisions, influence policy, manage others and effectuate and implement change.

Evaluation through Impact Networks

Evaluating a restructuring process can be accomplished through myriad methods. In this study I focus on building impact networks, a brainstorming technique that is used to identify possible impacts and effects of key events on future developments (Morrison, et. al., 1984). Once an issue or event is identified, a brainstorm indicated possible impacts, both positive and negative. These initial “acceptable impacts” are known as first-order impacts. Once first-order impacts are identified an additional brainstorm occurs to identify second-order impacts, which are the possible impacts, both positive and negative, that could result if the first-order impacts occur. This is a process that can extend beyond second order impacts if desired.

Impact networks can be used when evaluating a restructuring process because it can assist university administrators with considering the impacts, both first and subsequent orders,

32 which result from changes to both the administrative and academic units of the university. This process requires extensive thought and consideration into how change can result in positive and negative impacts. Often this method is able to identify unforeseen consequences that can result from positive first-order impacts that lead to negative second-order impacts (Morrison, et. al.,

1984).

Theoretical Framework

The concept of organizational change in higher education has been extensively studied and includes topics such as strategic planning, resource allocation, innovation, entrepreneurialism, and restructuring (Gumport & Sporn, 1999). Understanding change processes in higher education requires the examination of both external and institutional environments, and in an effort to do so, resource dependence theory and institutional theory provide the theoretical frameworks for this study. Resource dependence theory provided the framework to examine the role of resources from the external environment in organizational survival. Institutional theory provided the framework needed to assess the role of the institutionalized environment and the role of isomorphism in achieving institutional legitimacy.

Similar to Sherer and Lee’s (2002, p.102) study on institutional change in large firms I integrate resource dependence and institutional theory to assert that “resources scarcity drives, and legitimacy enables, institutional change.”

Resource Dependence Theory

Resource dependence theory, a perspective that is characterized by an open systems framework, is focused on the role of resources in organizational survival (Gumport & Sporn,

1999). Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) theorized the idea that the procurement of resources from the

33 external environment and the maintenance of those resources are the essential components of institutional survival. The environment itself is of great importance in resource dependence theory and includes the technical and task environment, interest groups, and the economic and political environments (Gumport & Sporn, 1999).

Resource dependency also assumes that organizations play an active role in their survival

(Gumport & Sporn, 1999). As resources become increasingly scarce, organization must acquire new resources, which requires innovation and change. The primary challenge faced by organizations in procuring and maintaining resources is that organizations are embedded in environments with other organizations they are dependent on. It then becomes the responsibility of each organization to manage their dependencies to ensure they can maintain functionality, or to alter the flow of resources and external dependencies (Scott, 1992).

Within this theoretical approach administrators, though constrained by their context, can diminish uncertainty in the environment and dependence (Hillman et al, 2009). Administrators are responsible for scanning the environment, identifying opportunities and threats, and selecting the most favorable and profitable solutions by securing the needed resources without creating an abundance of dependence (Scott, 1992; Gumport & Sporn, 1999). As financial resources become increasingly scarce, dependence increases and procuring resources becomes even more critical to institutional survival. Power, in the form of control over critical resources, becomes a central part of reducing future dependence and managing current dependence (Ulrich & Barney,

1984). “Organizations attempt to reduce other’ power over them, often attempting to increase their own power over others” (Hillman et al, 2009, p.1404).

Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) offer five methods to manage environmental dependence:

(1) mergers and acquisitions, (2) joint ventures, (3) boards of directors, (4) political action, and

(5) executive succession (Hillman et. al., 2009).

Pfeffer (1976, p. 39) offers three reasons why organization participate in mergers and acquisitions, “First, to reduce competition by absorbing an important competitor organization; second, to manage interdependence with either sources of input or purchasers of output by absorbing them; and third, to diversity operations and thereby lessen dependence on the present organizations with which it exchanges.” Rowley’s (1997) review of mergers in higher education identified key drivers for institutional mergers, some of which support Pfeffer’s assertions and some of which differ. Key drivers included academic compatibility (not competition), institutional survival, strategic planning, access to new markets, response to change in the higher education sector, and enhancing organization prominence in geographic region.

Joint ventures and collaborations also provide organizations opportunities to acquire resources and reduce uncertainty and interdependence (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Joint ventures include interorganizational relationships like strategic alliances, R&D agreements, research consortia, joint-marketing agreements, and buyer-supplier relationships (Barringer & Harrison,

2000; Oliver, 1990). However, unlike mergers, joint ventures only absorb a part of the interdependencies (Hillman et al, 2009). Joint ventures are usually entered into by mutually dependent organizations to reduce environmental complexity, gain resources, or to gain power over resource providers (Pfeffer &Nowak, 1976; Provan, et al, 1980). Collaboration and joint ventures in higher education have been prevalent for decades. Collaboration between the higher education sector and the corporate sector has produced joint ventures and partnerships in business and research (Matthews & Norgard, 1984).

Boards of directors can help organizations minimize dependence or gain resources

(Pfeffer, 1972). Typically these boards are made up of “business experts,” “support specialists,” and “community influentials,” each providing different types of resources (Hillman et al, 2000).

According to Pfeffer & Salancik (1978) these boards provide four benefits including (1) counsel and advice, (2) access to information between organizations and their environmental contingencies, (3) preferential access to resources, and (4) legitimacy (Hillman, et al, 2009).

Research by Pusser, Slaugher and Scott (2006) on university boards echoes the assertion that the trustees, through their networks, affiliations, and memberships on other boards provide substantial information and legitimacy to institutions.

The necessity of political action, according to Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) is due to the inability of organizations to reduce uncertainty and interdependence on larger social systems, including the government (Hillman et al, 2009). Organizations use political actions to help create an environment that is better for its interest and to “alter the condition of the external economic environment” (Pfeffer and Salncik, 1978, p.190). Additionally, Meznar and Nigh (1995) noted that firms that are highly dependent on the government are more likely to engage in political actions. According to Altbach, Berdahl, and Gumport (2011) the federal and state roles in higher education has become increasingly more interdependent. Higher education institutions are dependent on the federal government for student financial aid and public colleges and universities are highly dependent on the state government for institutional funding. These dependencies require colleges and universities to be accountable regarding financial practices and student outcomes.

Executive succession is an organization’s internal response to environmental uncertainty

(Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Hillman et al, 2009). According to Pfeffer and Salancik, when an organization performs poorly, it can often be related to “a misalignment of organizational behavior with the environment” (Hillman, et al, 2009). This misalignment is often corrected by selecting new leadership. Additionally, According to Harrison et al (1988) firms that are more dependent on the environment tend to have higher executive turnover. According to Kezar

(2009) presidents and other administrative leaders serve relatively short terms in office, with presidents usually serving seven years and trustees serving less than two years. While turnover is expected, change typically takes 10-15 years, which presents a major challenge as new leaders, replace old leaders and often begin their terms with new initiatives and ideas.

In an effort to survive, higher education organizations must employ multiple strategies to increase their power and manage their dependence on other organizations in the environment.

According to Sherer and Lee (2002) while resource dependence theory suggests that organizations will pursue the change strategies to manage dependence and acquire resources, it does not identify how organizations are enabled to engage in this change behavior. This is one of the contributions that institutional theory brings to this study. The concept of legitimacy provides an understanding of how prestige can influence when organizations engage in change, whether they are early or late adopters.

Institutional Theory

Institutional theory posits that organizational success is achieved, not by following the rules created internally, but by conforming to pressures and myths from the external institutionalized environment (Meyer & Rowan, 1992). The environment, as it is used in institutional theory, encompasses the technical environments consisting of resources,

37 information, markets, and social and cultural environments which include values, norms, and politics of the larger society (Scott, 1992; Gumport & Sporn, 1999). Organizational success is achieved by ceremonially adopting myths from the external environment that influence internal formal structures. Additionally, organizational success is not achieved based upon the efficiency of operations but by an organization’s ability to be isomorphic with the institutionalized environment. Institutional isomorphism is a process in which organizations adopt similar structures, strategies, and processes (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Isomorphism helps organizations achieve legitimacy, which helps establish institutional stability and increases prospects of survival. Legitimacy is a status granted by social actors, specifically regulators and the general public (Deephouse, 1996; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).

There are three type of institutional isomorphism: coercive, mimetic, and normative

(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Coercive isomorphism is a result of political and cultural pressures from the environment. These pressures are often not overt, but rather subtle and understated and can range from state policies and legislation to culture and community values and traditions.

Mimetic isomorphism is a response to uncertainty within an organization and often results from ambiguous goals and inefficient technology. Normative isomorphism refers more specifically to the professionalization of positions within an organizational field and how overtime individuals in professionalized roles move from organization to organization, bringing with them a certain manner of doing things. Additionally, through the cultivation of and involvement in professional networks and associations, the ideas of what makes a university successful emerge and are shared. The role of the administrator is varied within this approach, but is largely present in the management of mimetic and normative isomorphism. Administrators must develop and

38 implement strategies to manage institutionalized practices and policies and make decisions that position the institution for legitimacy and survival.

DiMaggio and Powell (1983) expanded the concept of isomorphism by introducing the concept of organizational fields, which developed around organizations that shared like missions, goals, customers, resources, and environments. These organizations face similar challenges and constraints in the environment and success is often hinged upon competing with the institutions within an organizational field for resources and legitimacy. Additionally, organizations within a field copy similar, successful organizations within the field in order to enhance the chance of survival.

Though higher education can be viewed as a singular organizational field, it can be argued that it is actually comprised of several organizational fields. These could include: research institutions, liberal arts colleges, Ivy League and prestigious institutions, and HBCUs.

These smaller organizational fields within higher education have missions and goals that are more aligned, are often competing for the same students and faculty, and are constrained by similar environmental challenges. As institutions strive to achieve legitimacy within their organizational field they may, “change their goals and develop new practices” (DiMaggio &

Powell, 1983, p148). These practices may not always enhance the institution, which is often the

“downside” of isomorphic behavior. Isomorphism does not always have positive outcomes due to differences in institutional culture, priorities, governance, resources, and constraints.

Additionally, institutions that are in more than one organizational field face enhanced challenges with isomorphism because the different organizational fields could legitimize contradictory goals and behavior.

Powell (1991) later revisited institutional theory and reconsidered some aspects of the institutionalization process, questioning not only the absoluteness of institutionalization, but also the institutional response. His prior work presented the environment and its pressures as insurmountable and all encompassing. The reconsidered view saw institutionalization more on a continuum and rebuked the idea that institutionalization was easy and inexpensive. Rather it noted that while institutions may be pressured to adopt policies and procedures to gain legitimacy not all institutions in a field could, due to resource and cultural constraints.

Additionally, institutionalization could be incomplete due to a plethora of reasons including: failed follow up and evaluation from legal and political authorities, varying sets of resources dependencies, hence different demands, and difference responses to environmental pressures.

Research examining change utilizing institutional theory exploded in the early 2000s, as researchers desired to explore organizational creation, transformation and culmination (Dacin et al, 2002). However, nearly 20 years prior DiMaggio and Powell (1983) identified the major challenge for change within an organizational field. While distinctiveness is often present in the initial phases of an organization, as organizations develop and mature, continuously fight for resources, and are constantly encouraged to become more alike to gain legitimacy, change becomes increasingly constrained (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). “Concern over legitimacy forces organizations to look alike and not be different for fear that they will lack credibility (Sherer &

Lee, 2002). While fear over legitimacy promotes isomorphism, change also requires legitimacy.

The first organizations to engage in change practices, early adopters, are those with prestige.

“Organizations with prestige have the legitimacy to act as initial and early adopters,” (Sherer &

Lee, 2002, p104). These prestigious organizations can use their status to experiment with change practices that have not been legitimized. If the change process is proved acceptable or successful

40 within the environment, the process of homogenization will occur and other organizations, late adopters, will eventually implement the behavior (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

Both resource dependence theory and institutional theory can individually assist with explaining organizational change, but together they provide a more holistic understanding

(Sherer & Lee, 2002). Resource dependence emphasizes the pressures from the environment that initiate change and institutional theory emphasized the role of legitimacy and how institutional forces enable change.

This literature review has highlighted the contemporary challenges faced by Historically

Black Colleges and Universities including their ongoing struggle to manage their historical mission of open and near-open access, constant threats to their accreditation, declining institutional funding, limited capacity in fundraising, attempts to enhance diversity, and their pursuit of prestige through rankings. Additionally, a review of restructuring was presented and included the role of the external and institutional environments, governance in restructuring, the various approaches to restructuring, challenges associated with restructuring, and evaluation and impact networks. Finally, the theoretical frameworks were discussed and focused on the use of both resource dependence and institutional theory.

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to explore restructuring at a public, historically black, four- year, doctoral-level institution of higher education through the lens of resource dependence and institutional theory. This study will investigate the impetus for and implications of academic and administrative change at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University between the initiation of the restructuring planning process in September of 2010 through April 2011 when the FAMU

Board of Trustees approved the restructuring plan. The restructuring process began in a climate of severe financial challenge, as the country and its post-secondary institutions were attempting to recover from the recession that began in late 2007.

This study will examine initial restructuring changes at the university. Focus will be given to the pressures, both internal and external, that led to the restructuring decision and how and why decisions were made throughout the restructuring process. Additionally, attention will be given to implications, both potential and realized, on the internal environment and specifically the institutional mission.

The restructuring process began after several years of institutional turmoil which included a year of accreditation probation by the Southern Association for Colleges and Schools

(SACS), several years of institutional budget cuts, significant presidential and executive

42 leadership changes, negative media coverage and a declining public image. As leadership within the institution worked to enhance their legitimacy, the institution faced an imminent crisis, threatening their survival. Change was imperative.

Research Questions

This study will investigate the impetus for and implications of academic and administrative restructuring at FAMU. This study seeks to answer the larger question, “Why and how do institutions restructure?” In doing so I ask the following questions specifically:

• Why and how did FAMU restructure?

• What internal and external pressures lead to the restructuring decision?

• How did internal and external pressures affect decision making in the restructuring

process?

• How did the restructuring process affect institutional culture, specifically the university

mission?

• What are the lessons for other institutions, specifically distinctive institutions,

considering institutional changes via a restructuring process?

Research Design

Case study methodology is a qualitative strategy of inquiry used to “contribute to our knowledge of individual, group, organizational, social, political and related phenomena” (Yin,

2009, p4). The researcher seeks to gain an in-depth understanding of a situation and its meaning for those involved (Merriam 1998). Moreover, the emphasis in case study research is in the process rather than outcomes, in context rather than specific variables, and in discovery rather

43 than confirmation. Case studies are “bounded systems,” bounded by both time and activity and deemed most appropriate when answering “how” and “why” questions and when exploring contemporary phenomena (Gomm, et al, 2008; Creswell, 2009; Yin, 2009). Accordingly,

FAMU and the restructuring process the institution engaged in between September 2010 and

April 2011 was selected as the focus of this case study.

FAMU was selected for this study using a purposive sampling approach (Chein, 1981) to develop an “information rich case” (Patton, 1990). This nonprobabilistic sampling approach is used when solving qualitative problems. It is used when the researcher selects a sample from which more can be learned while attempting to “discover, understand, and gain insight.”

(Merriam, 1998, p.61).

Case study methodology was best suited for the purposes of this study because it is used for an in-depth examination of contemporary phenomena within a real-life context, and it attempts to answer research questions more holistically by including the perspectives of insiders, outsiders and the researcher within the research (Creswell, 2009; Yin; 2009). At FAMU these perspectives included those of administrators, faculty, board members and students. These perspectives were gained through the use interviews and documents. Together these data will provide a deeper understanding of the restructuring process and emphasize the context around the decisions made within this process.

When selecting a higher education institution for this research study three HBCUs were considered: (1) Howard University, (2) North Carolina A&T State University, and (3) FAMU.

Each of these institutions is a large HBCU with over 10,000 graduate and undergraduate students and an emphasis in research. During the time period surrounding this research study North

Carolina A&T State University had not engaged in a restructuring process. Howard University

44 had engaged in a restructuring process between 2008-2010, but the process was solely academic restructuring. FAMU was selected as the study site because the university engaged in both academic and administrative restructuring, thus providing an opportunity to examine change in two distinct areas of the university.

FAMU’s institutional saga also prompted my interest in this case study. This institution, once the only public higher education opportunity for blacks in the state of Florida, had experienced several decades of growth and was even considered to be amongst the most elite

Historically Black Colleges and Universities. But after several leadership changes and years of financial mismanagement, in 2007 FAMU found itself on the brink of collapse as its accreditation was threatened. As the university named a new leader who was a former student, professor and administrator, it began to re-emerge and reposition for a brighter future…and then the recession began. As the university faced several years of budget cuts, drastic change was imminent.

Study Site: Florida A&M University

FAMU, “Florida’s Opportunity University.” is one of eleven universities in the State

University System of Florida and accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and

Schools. It was founded in 1887 as the State Normal College for Colored Students in the state’s capital, Tallahassee, Florida. FAMU is an urban, public, land grant, research institution and the only public Historically Black College and University (HBCU) in the state.

FAMU has over 13,000 students, making it the nation’s largest HBCU. It is also the largest not-for profit producer of African American baccalaureate degrees and boasts the largest public HBCU endowment at nearly $111.5 million. FAMU is Carnegie classified as a

“doctoral/research” university and its research funding exceeds $50 million. Undergraduates constitute the majority of the student body with numbers exceeding 11,000 and nearly 90 percent of them attend full-time. Additionally, though the overwhelming majority of FAMU students are black, the institution has representation from over 70 countries within the student body. FAMU has approximately 700 faculty members and a faculty to student ratio of 20 to 1.

FAMU’s main campus, in Tallahassee is nearly 422 acres. There are also four satellite campuses, the FAMU College of Law in Orlando, Florida and additional pharmacy school sites in Miami, Jacksonville, and Tampa. FAMU has 13 schools and colleges and 1 institute. FAMU currently offers 62 bachelor’s degree, 39 master’s degrees, 11 doctoral degrees and 1 professional degree.

FAMU was founded in 1887 as a result of its first president Thomas DeSaille Tucker, an attorney, Thomas Van Renssaler Gibbs, a state representative, and $7,500 from the 2nd Morrill

Land Grant Act of 1890. The institution began with 3 departments, 17 students, and a focus on agricultural and mechanical arts. By 1901 Nathan B. Young became the second president and led the transition of FAMU from a normal and industrial school to a four-year degree granting institution. By 1909 the school was known as Florida A&M College for Negros, had over 317 students and added degrees in home economics, education, and science. Later in Young’s presidency the college received a $10,000 gift by Andrew Carnegie to build a library. This was the first Carnegie library located on a land grant HBCU campus.

When Jon Robert Edward Lee, Sr., became the third president in 1924 he was charged with shaping the physical and academic image of the campus. In the twenty years that he served as president FAMU acquired hundreds of acres of land, built nearly 50 buildings, and expanded the student body to over 800 students. FAMU’s fourth president William H. Gray began his

46 presidency in 1944 and though he only led the institution for 5 years he was able to continue the student expansion to nearly 2,000 and add an Army ROTC unit.

Dr. George W. Gore took over as the fifth president in 1950 and in his eighteen years as

FAMU president he was responsible for a number of changes. By 1953 FAMU officially became a university according to the Carnegie classification. . In the next few years the university added several new academic programs including schools of pharmacy, law, graduate studies, and nursing. FAMU also achieved accreditation from the Southern Association of Colleges and

Schools (SACS). The FAMU Hospital was built during this time and the student population swelled to nearly 3,500.

Dr. Benjamin L. Perry became the sixth president in 1968 and helped FAMU achieve full partnership in the State University System of Florida. He also was responsible for adding several academic programs and reorganizing the academic areas into departments. By 1970 FAMU’s enrollment exceed 5,000. FAMU’s seventh president Dr. Walter L. Smith took over in 1977. He was able to establish the first Doctor of Philosophy degree program, launch the university’s endowment, and acquire over $34 million for construction and renovation.

FAMU rose to national prominence under the administration of Dr. Fredrick S.

Humphries, the university’s eighth president, who took over in 1985. Under his presidency enrollment increased from 5100 students in 1985 to 12,000 in 1999. Not only did the size of the student body increase, but also the academic quality. In 1992, 1995 and 1997, FAMU enrolled more National Achievement1 finalists than Harvard, Yale and Stanford. Also in 1997 FAMU was named the Time-Princeton Review “College of the Year” due to its success in increasing enrollment, retention and graduation, endowment growth, and the addition of doctoral programs

1 The National Achievement Scholarship is run concurrently with the National Merit Scholarship but is specifically targeted for African American students.

(famu.edu, 2012). In 1999, Black Issues in Higher Education cited FAMU for awarding more baccalaureate degrees to African-Americans than any other institution in this nation.

However, the years following Dr. Humphries’ retirement in 2001 would find FAMU facing several serious challenges. Dr. Fred Gainous, FAMU’s ninth president, served for only 2 years and was not received well by students, faculty, or alumni. By 2005 he was replaced by an interim president, Dr. Castell V. Bryant, who served in this position for over two years and then abruptly left in May of 2007.

Between 2003-2006 FAMU received several negative financial audits from the state of

Florida, “finding millions of dollars in questionable expenses, shoddy bookkeeping and lost inventory” (Colavecchio-Van Sickler, 2007, December 11). During this time FAMU’s public image plummeted, adding to the difficulty. In 2007 the SACS Commission on Colleges placed

FAMU on probation citing FAMU for not complying with 10 standards for financial accountability. This presented a tremendous problem because without accreditation FAMU would not be able to receive student financial aid, a potentially devastating blow for a university where over 77% of students qualify for need based aid.

Only three days after probation was announced, on June 30, 2007, FAMU named their tenth and current president, Dr. James Ammons. Dr. Ammons and his leadership team were able to get FAMU removed from probation within a year and soon after launched plans to restore

FAMU’s prominence. These plans were consistently challenged as FAMU, like all universities in the State University System of Florida, experienced staggering budget cuts. While the recession was felt nationwide in 2008, Florida’s decline began in 2007. Florida does not have a state income tax and relies heavily on property and sales taxes to fund the state’s budget. As state revenues experienced sharp decreases, Florida’s universities experienced major cuts to their

48 allocations. Between 2007 and 2010 FAMU’s allocations from the state were cut by more than

$35 million. In 2007 state allocations contributed approximately 70% of FAMU’s educational and general revenue. By 2010 state allocations decreased to approximately 54% of FAMU’s educational and general revenue. In the fall of 2010 FAMU announced plans to restructure the university.

Data Collection

This study examined the internal and external pressures associated with initiating change and the decision-making involved in the university restructuring process. Data were collected from multiple information sources with the goal of “corroborating the same fact or phenomenon”

(Yin, 2009). Information about the financial, political, and social context of the restructuring process were obtained through the use of documents and interviews with multiple individuals both directly and indirectly involved in the restructuring process.

Documents

Both before and after my research visit I reviewed a variety of documents related to the

FAMU restructuring process. Documents played a vital role in providing explicit details and highlighting areas within the case that needed further investigation. Documents provide the opportunity for the researcher to become a “vicarious observer” of documentary evidence, which reflected the communication amongst other parties who were attempting to reach a goal (Yin,

2009). The following documents were utilized for the case: e-newspaper articles, emails and memos from the president and provost, the restructuring plan, the university strategic plan, the

Board of Governor’s strategic plan, departmental productivity reports, current/proposed academic structure plans, FAMU Board of Trustees meeting minutes and presentations,

49 institutional operational budgets 2006-2010, results from university organization focus groups and surveys (All FAMU documents are listed in APPENDIX A). All newspaper articles were identified and retrieved through Internet searches. Many of the institutional documents were retrievable through the “Restructuring” webpage on the FAMU website.

Interviews

Interviews are valuable and essential sources of data and are used to corroborate facts established in documents and also to gain individual insight about participant perspectives (Yin,

2009). Interview participants were identified and purposefully selected based upon their involvement in the restructuring process. The 14 participants included members of the university president’s staff; administrators in Academic Affairs, the Division of Administrative and

Financial Services, Student Affairs, and Communications; deans of colleges and schools, faculty, staff, a member of the FAMU Board of Trustees, and a student (a list of selected senior administrators, deans, faculty, and students leaders serving during the time of the restructuring process are included in APPENDIX B). There were 12 in-person interviews and 2 phone interviews. Interviews were between 60 and 120 minutes.

The Institutional Research Board at the University of Georgia approved the study.

Approval from FAMU’s Institutional Research Board was gained through an IRB Authorization

Agreement. A member of the president’s leadership team, served as the initial contact that assisted with providing institutional access for this study. Another member of the president’s leadership team assisted with requesting, confirming, and scheduling all interviews. Prior to initiating interviews my contact was made aware of the purpose and methods of the study. A note was also emailed to all of the interview participants providing full disclosure of the purpose and structure of the study (APPENDIX C). Additionally, at the interviews all participants were

50 informed again of the purpose of the study, promised confidentiality, and presented an informed consent form (APPENDIX D) to review and sign.

A semi-structured interview approach, using an interview protocol (APPENDIX E) was utilized to guide conversations and enhance fluidity in the stream of questioning. Some participants were presented slightly different questions in line with their position and connection to the restructuring process. Each participant was asked and agreed to allow the interview to be taped. All of the interviews were transcribed and access to the data was limited to myself.

Data Analysis

Case study research utilizes inductive analysis, which allows for emergent, categories, patterns and themes built through “interactions with the data” (Patton, 2002, p. 453). This analysis process was ongoing and occurred both inside and outside the field and throughout the entire study (Merriam, 1998). Data analysis also occurred simultaneously with data collection.

In an effort to maintain organization in the data management process all interviews and documents were labeled to assist with easy access throughout the analysis and write-up of the case. As documents were retrieved they were labeled and placed into file folders. Additionally, following the recording and transcription of all interviews, the transcripts were also labeled and placed into electronic file folders on the computer.

Once the data were organized all of the documents and transcripts were printed out and re-read several times. Key concepts and ideas were underlined and written in the margins of the transcripts and documents and initial codes emerged. After reading and reflecting on all of the data, categories were developed around the questions which addressed the internal and external pressures involved in the restructuring process, the decision making within the process, and

51 potential impacts of the structural changes. Using direct interpretation, I identified patterns and emerging themes within and across categories. Finally, I developed naturalistic generalizations to present lessons learned for other institutions of higher education and specifically other distinctive institutions.

Research Quality

Establishing research quality is an important aspect of research design for both quantitative and qualitative research. Consumers of research want to know that research results are trustworthy and credible. This is achieved by focusing on triangulation, researcher bias, reliability, and ethics (Yin, 2009).

Triangulation

According to Patton (2002) there are four types of triangulation: (1) data triangulation focuses on the use of multiple data sources; (2) investigator triangulation focuses on multiple evaluators; (3) theory triangulation focuses on multiple perspectives on the same data set; and (4) methodological triangulation focuses on the use of multiple research methods.

In this study I employed the use of data triangulation and methodological triangulation.

Data triangulation was implemented by the use of various data sources including: interviews, and documents like memos, letters, university plans, institutional budgets and focus group data.

Methodological triangulation was implemented by engaging in various methodologies including conducting interviews, and retrieving documents.

LeCompte and Preissle (1993) state that qualitative research “is distinguished partly by its admission of the subjective perception and biases of both participants and researcher into the research frame” (p. 92). Identifying research bias involves being very upfront about ideas,

52 notions, values, and judgments that the research brings into the research (Creswell, 2009). Being up front about them will help identify traces of this bias in the analysis and conclusions drawn in the research.

As a graduate of FAMU I bring to the study inherent biases that come from my experiences and knowledge of the institution. Though my experience with FAMU provided me with easier access to the institution and gatekeepers within the institution, and assisted me in gaining trust from interview participants, it also presented the possibility of impacting the rigor of the study due to my subjectivity.

In order to combat these challenges I, with intentionality, presented diverse perspectives demonstrating the varied findings from the study in an effort to present a more realist picture of the research setting, participants, attitudes, and perspectives. Additionally, I approached the research with sensitivity to the people, culture and institution. Finally, I remained committed to conducting research in an ethical matter throughout the entire research process.

Reliability

Reliability is known as the extent to which a study can be replicated (Merriam, 1992).

This is problematic in social science research because human behavior never stays the same.

The notion of reliability is more applicable to quantitative work but there are methods to enhance reliability and they are similar, in this study, to methods to enhance internal validity, triangulation and researcher bias. Methodological triangulation is vital to enhancing reliability in addition to clearly stating the biases of the researcher.

Generalizability

Case studies and qualitative research in general is often criticized for the lack of generalizability (Yin, 2009; Creswell, 2009). Generalizability is the ability of taking results from

53 a study with a sample and projecting the results on a larger population. While this is done in quantitative research because the size of the sample can be much larger, it is not possible in qualitative research, which can focus on individuals, distinctive groups, and, in the case of this study, a single institution. Many argue that while the research results provide excellent and useful information for the sample studied many of those conclusions cannot be projected on populations made up of different people.

While generalizability in the way that quantitative researchers use it cannot be transferred to qualitative research, according to Erickson (1986) it is inappropriate to make the goal of interpretive research to produce generalizable results. “The search is not for abstract universals arrived at by statistical generalizations from a sample to a population, but for concrete universals arrived at by studying a specific case in great detail and then comparing it with other cases studied in equally great detail” (p.130). Additionally, Merriam (1992) states that “the general lies in the particular; that is, what we learn in a particular situation we can transfer or generalize to similar situations subsequently encountered” (p. 210). This is what I hoped to have accomplished in this research, to present the case of a large public HBCU initiating a restructuring process. I hope to have identified findings that can be considered by other similar institutions that are also engaging in similar processes.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations are a challenge in all types of research. According to MacDonald and Walker (1977), “at all levels of the system what people think they’re doing, what they say they are doing, what they appear to be doing, and what in fact they are doing, may be sources of discrepancy…Any research which threatens to reveal these discrepancies threatens to create

54 dissonance, both personal and political” (p.186, emphasis in original). It is essential that any researcher consider the various ethical issues when conducting research.

In conducting this case study I first considered how my research and my specific questions might marginalize or oppress HBCUs, FAMU, and interview participants. After consultation with my committee and approval of my dissertation proposal I moved forward with my research by obtaining research approval through the University of Georgia Institutional

Review Board and through the authorization agreement used to conduct research at FAMU.

Within these documents I committed contractually to following ethical guidelines when conducting my research.

In an effort to remain transparent with institutional informants and participants I provided an informational document that stated my research topic, purpose, and questions. Additionally, before the beginning of each interview I reviewed the informed consent form (APPENDIX D) with the participant and obtained their signature. This consent form identified the purpose of the study, participant involvement, confidentiality, potential benefits and/or risks, and a statement that participants could withdraw from the study at any time. Additionally, all tape-recorded interviews were erased at the conclusion of the research project.

Research Context

In an effort to provide complete transparency in the research process it is important that I disclose information about an event that occurred at the research site prior to the beginning of my research. Though the event that occurred was completely unrelated to my research, many of the participants are members of the university president’s leadership team and responsible for managing the crisis the university experienced.

On November 19, 2011 at 10:36pm, Robert Champion, a drum major for FAMU’s

“Marching 100” marching band was pronounced dead. It is alleged that hazing rituals were the suspected cause. Investigation into the death quickly spread from examining an isolated incident to a full-scale exploration of the institutionalization of hazing in the band and university culture.

Investigators at the county and state level focused on identifying the responsible parties for

Champion’s death, while Florida Governor Rick Scott engaged the Florida Department of Law

Enforcement in an investigation of other financial irregularities in the finances and operations of the band. Simultaneously, additional hazing allegations surfaced involving members of the

FAMU band prompting extensive questions about the lack of administrative oversight, university policies and procedures, and possible cover-ups.

The story of the hazing death at FAMU, fueled initially by social media, became a national media headline, garnering coverage by major print and television news sources and initiating negative public relations for FAMU. Reporters invaded the campus in hopes of capturing insight from students, staff, faculty and administrators about the death of Robert

Champion and also about the alleged culture of hazing at the institution.

On December 13, 2011, 25 days after Robert Champion’s death, I began interviews with administrators, faculty, and students at FAMU regarding the academic and administrative restructuring that occurred at the university between September of 2010 and April of 2011.

Though my interview questions were regarding issues not in any way connected to the ongoing hazing investigations, it is important to note the context of the interviews and to consider the possibility that participants may have potentially been more guarded in their responses.

CHAPTER 4

FAMU RESTRUCTURING: REVIEW OF THE CONTEXT AND CHANGES

This chapter is comprised of two parts. In part one I provide an overview of the context for restructuring at FAMU. In part 2, I provide a detailed overview of the academic and administrative changes include in the restructuring plan.

The Restructuring Context

On September 23, 2010 Dr. James Ammons, president of FAMU, announced that, in response to an approximately $35 million in budget cuts since fiscal year 2007, the university was beginning a restructuring process. The restructuring plan, “Excellence in a New Era:

Developing the Millennial FAMU,” was billed as a strategic decision, and “designed to solidify

FAMU’s future.” The overarching goal of the restructuring process was to strengthen FAMU’s academic programs in a climate of fiscal constraint. This goal was to be accomplished by restructuring with the goal of strengthening programs, enhancing productivity and creating efficiencies through technology use and collaboration, and reinvesting in focused areas of strength.

The roots of the restructuring process at FAMU predated the university’s fiscal concerns.

The process evolved out of the university strategic planning process, which occurred shortly after the reaffirmation of accreditation from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools on

June 26, 2008. Following the university’s strategic planning process the State University System of Florida’s (SUS) Board of Governors initiated the “New Florida Initiative” which had its own set of strategic priorities directed at Florida’s 11 Universities. FAMU was charged with identifying key priorities, which reflected both their strategic planning goals and the “New

Florida Initiative.” These processes resulted in streamlined short term and long term priorities for

FAMU, prior to the restructuring decision.

Table 3

Florida A&M University Restructuring Timeline

Date Activities June 2007 Southern Association of Colleges & Schools Places FAMU on Probation June 2007 Dr. James Ammons name FAMU President June 2008 Southern Association of Colleges & Schools Reaffirms FAMU Accreditation October 2008 FAMU Reorganization Task Force Created October 2009 FAMU Strategic Plan 2010-2020 Approved January 2010 State of Florida Board of Governors Launches “New Florida Initiative” September 2010 President Announces FAMU Restructuring November 2010 FAMU eliminates School of General Studies, School of Graduate Studies, and Mulrennan Laboratory January 2011 Faculty and Staff Focus Groups February 2011 Faculty and Staff Focus Groups April 2011 Final Restructuring Plan Approved by FAMU Board of Trustees June 2011 Stimulus Funding Ends for 110 Employee Positions

The FAMU strategic planning process began in the fall of 2008, only one year after

President Ammons and his administration began their leadership at FAMU and only 3 months after the SACS Commissions on School reaffirmed their accreditation for 10 additional years.

This process involved the input of a university-wide committee, which was broken into subcommittees focused on mission, vision, and core values, survey development, and strategic initiatives.

The first major action of the strategic planning process was an extensive review of the then current FAMU strategic plan, which was being used to guide the university from 2004-

2014. Also examined were the goals of the SUS Board of Governors and the FAMU Board of

Trustees, SACS Commission on Colleges standards, and surveys from faculty, staff, administrators, students, alumni, and corporate partners. Using these documents the committee performed a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis, reviewed the successes of the current strategic plan, and considered current financial stressors due to successive cuts in state appropriations. The strategic plan (Florida Agricultural and Mechanical

University Strategic Plan 2010-2020) that was approved in October of 2009 to guide the university from 2010-2020 highlighted a revised university vision, mission, and core values and

5 strategic initiatives, each with respective goals, strategies and performance measures.

The revised FAMU Mission Statement saw the addition of language about the university’s doctoral/research distinction and its status as a land grant institution:

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU) is an 1890 land-grant institution dedicated to the advancement of knowledge, resolution of complex issues and the empowerment of citizens and communities. The university provides a student-centered environment consistent with its core values. The faculty is committed to educating students at the undergraduate, graduate, doctoral and professional levels, preparing graduates to apply their knowledge, critical thinking skills and creativity in their service to society. FAMU’s distinction as a doctoral/research institution will continue to provide mechanisms to address emerging issues through local and global partnerships. Expanding upon the university’s land-grant status, it will enhance the lives of constituents through innovative research, engaging cooperative extension, and public service. While the university continues its historic mission of educating African Americans, FAMU embraces persons of all races, ethnic origins and nationalities as life- long members of the university community.

The revised FAMU Vision Statement also emphasizes the goal of recognition as a leading research and land grant institution:

Florida A&M University (FAMU) will be internationally recognized as a premier land grant and research institution committed to exemplary teaching, research, and service preparing transformational graduates with high ethical values dedicated to solving complex issues impacting our global society.

The revised FAMU Core Values were updated with the single addition of “shared governance”:

Scholarship, Excellence, Openness, Fiscal Responsibility, Accountability, Collaboration, Diversity, Service, Fairness, Courage, Integrity, Respect, Collegiality, Freedom, Ethics and Shared Governance.

There were 5 Strategic Initiatives highlighted in the restructuring plan (see table 4).

Table 4

Florida A&M University Strategic Initiatives

Strategic initiatives 1 Create a 21st century living and learning collegiate community

2 Enable excellence in university processes and procedures

3 Develop, enhance, and retain appropriate fiscal, human, technological, research and physical resources to achieve the university’s mission 4 Enable excellence in university relations and development

5 Enhance and sustain the academic and social environment promoting internationalization, diversity, and inclusiveness

Source: Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Strategic Plan 2010-2020

In addition to these Strategic Initiatives, several Strategic Goals and Strategies were outlined to achieve the Strategic Initiatives (see table 5)

Table 5

Selected Strategic Goals and Strategies

Strategic goals and strategies 1.3.1 Continuous assessment and improvement of student retention and academic progression

1.5.1 Develop new programs that meet market and student demands

1.4.1 Enhance current academic degree programs and graduation rates

2.3.2 Improve customer relations in serving students

2.6.1 Enhance and manage the University’s business process re-engineering efforts

3.2.1 Strengthen salaries and support for faculty and staff to nationally competitive levels

3.4.1 Establish a comprehensive research strategy identifying areas of critical importance to the University 3.4.3 Enhance all business processes to facilitate FAMU being a nationally recognized doctoral/research institution 4.1.1 Institute a university capital campaign

5.1.1 Maintain FAMU’s position as a top producer of African American baccalaureate degree recipients 5.1.2 Become a top producer of African Americans with graduate and professional degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), law, and health 5.2.1 Enhance the international dimension of academic and research programs at FAMU

Source: Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Strategic Plan 2010-2020

The 2010-2020 FAMU Strategic Plan was approved by the FAMU Board of Trustees at the October 15, 2009 Board of Trustee’s Meeting. Only a few months later, the State University

Systems’ Board of Governors’ officially announced the launch of the “New Florida Initiative” on

January 24, 2010. This new initiative, a partnership between Florida’s Governor and the

Legislature was branded as a “multi-year endeavor [that] will ensure that Florida’s knowledge and innovation economy is sustained by high-technology, high-wage jobs in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (“STEM”). It was described as “the State University

System’s collaborative effort — alongside business and government — to deliver the economy, talent and innovation that Florida must have to be globally competitive.” “The New Florida

Initiative” identified the 11 four-year universities in the state as the keys to the transformation of

Florida and it’s economy (State University System of Florida Board of Governors)

The “New Florida Initiative” identified expected outcomes for the state’s universities for the years 2015 and 2020. However, the first course of action for implementing this initiative was the requirement that each of the state’s universities create a five-year work plan for the years

2010-2015. These multi-year plans required FAMU administrators to identify the key institutional priories that would later be the basis of their future assessment. Additionally, the university was required to align these key institutional priorities with the Board of Governors and

FAMU’s respective strategic priorities.

Table 6

The Florida Board of Governor’s Strategic Priorities

Strategic priorities

1 Access to and production of degrees

2 Meeting statewide professional and workforce needs

3 Building world class academic programs and research capacity

4 Meeting community needs and fulfilling unique institutional responsibilities

Source: Investing in the Future of FAMU: FAMU Restructuring Plan for 2011-2014

The Board of Governors Strategic Priorities, in conjunction with the FAMU Strategic

Plan, were used as the basis for developing the FAMU Work Plan Key Institutional Priorities

(see table 7).

Table 7

Florida A&M University Work Plan Key Institutional Priorities for 2011

Key Institutional Priorities

1 Enhance visibility and productivity as a doctoral/research university

2 Increase University activities to address health care disparities among underserved populations 2 Increase the persistence/retention rates of undergraduate students, leading to increased graduation rates 4 Initiate online academic programs

5 Increase international opportunities for faculty and students

Source: Investing in the Future of FAMU: FAMU Restructuring Plan for 2011-2014

By mid-2010, FAMU was armed with a revised institutional mission, vision, and set of strategic initiatives developed in the university’s strategic planning process, strategic priorities from the State University System Board of Governors’ strategic planning process, and key institutional priorities developed as a part of the work plan required by the SUS Board of

Governors. FAMU’s priorities both long term and short term were focused on enhancing its institutional position as a research institution, expanding the reach of their program offerings, increasing retention and completion, increasing external resources, enhancing domestic and international diversity, and fine-tuning university processes and procedures.

These priorities were challenging and in some ways contradictory to the historical mission of expanding access. In order to enhance the status as a research institution and increase retention and graduation rates, FAMU would be required to make dramatically different choices in admission. In effect, access to a large group of students who previously would have been accepted would now be denied admission, serving the goal of bringing in only qualified students and research-oriented faculty.

While the university leaders worked on institutional planning, they could not ignore the economic recession that had a profound and brutal effect on the state’s economy, and state appropriations to all of the Florida State University System institutions. State appropriations to

FAMU had declined since fiscal year 2007-2008, the sharpest decline occurred between fiscal year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, followed by an additional reduction in fiscal year 2010-2011 which was also traumatic. In 2007 state allocations contributed approximately 70% of FAMU’s educational and general revenue (figure 1). By 2010 state allocations decreased to approximately

54% of FAMU’s educational and general revenue (figure 2). Overall, FAMU experienced over

$35 million in budget cuts between 2007-2010 (see table 8).

FAMU Educational and General Revenues 2007-2008 Lottery 5%

Tuition 25%

State Appropriations 70%

Source: FAMU 2010-2011 Fact Book Figure 1

Florida A&M University Educational and General Revenues 2007-2008

FAMU Educational and General Revenues 2010-2011 Stimulus Lottery 5% 7%

Tuition 34%

State Appropriations 54%

Source: FAMU 2010-2011 Fact Book Figure 2 Florida A&M University Educational and General Revenues 2010-2011

Table 8

General Revenue Budget Reduction to Florida A&M University

Year Budget Reduction

2007-2008 $5,251,221

2008-2009 $10,689,291

2009-2010 $16,246,516

2010-2011 $3,153,531

Total $35,340,559 2007-2011 Note. IPEDS: Fiscal Year: July1-June30 Source: FAMU Board of Trustees Restructuring Presentation

When external resources decline, institutions often look internally at savings that can be achieved by reducing expenses. Unfortunately, like most higher education institutions, the majority of FAMU’s expenditures, nearly 78%, were associated with salaries (FAMU Board of

Trustees Restructuring Presentation, 2010). Additionally, institutional leaders will also seek assistance from the university endowment. However, due to the economy, many university endowments experienced severe losses. HBCUs, which have historically held some of the lowest endowments, also experienced great losses. Though FAMU has the fourth largest endowment of an HBCU (Kiley, 2012), behind Howard University, Spelman College, and Hampton University, the endowment net assets decreased significantly since they reached their highest level in fiscal year 2007-2008 (See Table 9). Additionally, the majority of the funds in the endowment were restricted, leaving the endowment largely inaccessible.

Table 9

Florida A&M University Foundation Endowment Net Assets

Year Net Assets

2005-2006 $94,624,467

2006-2007 $104,930,385

2007-2008 $119,020,511

2008-2009 $114,986,727

2009-2010 $89,819,510

2010-2011 $79,252,075

Note. IPEDS: Fiscal Year: July1-June30 Source: Florida A&M University Board of Trustees Restructuring Presentation

University leaders also pursue tuition increases as an option for increasing revenue when state appropriations are declining. Florida has one of the lowest tuition prices in the nation

(Orlando Sentinel, 2010). Tuition at public 4-year institutions in fiscal year 2009-2010 was under

$2800 per year semester for 15 credit hours (Tampa Bay Times, 2012). One of the reasons for

66 this low tuition was the link between tuition levels and the Bright Futures Merit Scholarship.

However, with decreasing state support for higher education, colleges and universities within the state consistently pushed for the ability to increase tuition. In 2007, Florida Governor Crist supported the request for institutions to add a tuition differential fee (Palm Beach Daily News,

June 27, 2007). The challenge FAMU faced was its student demographics, which consisted of a large number of students from low-income families. Nearly 77% of FAMU undergraduate students receive need-based aid and drastically increasing tuition could potentially impact enrollment, retention, and completion numbers (U.S News and World Report, 2012). So rather than drastically increasing tuition price, the university leadership decided to increase enrollment

(see table 10).

Table 10

Florida A&M University Tuition and Enrollment 2005-2011

Year FAMU tuition revenue Student enrollment (headcount) 2005-2006 $41,506,220 12,177

2006-2007 $37,955,036 11,913

2007-2008 $39,255,167 11,567

2008-2009 $39,436,794 11,848

2009-2010 $45,262,162 12,261

2010-2011 $46,096,506 13,277

Note. IPEDS: Fiscal Year: July1-June30 Source: FAMU Board of Trustees Restructuring Presentation

Two rounds of reductions in state appropriations that occurred between 2008-2010 required leadership to make several reductions to the FAMU budget. The President’s

Restructuring and Reinvestment Committee created a set of “Guiding Principles” in an effort to direct decision-making in this process (see table 11).

Table 11

Florida A&M University Budget Reduction Guiding Principles 2008-2010

Guiding principles

1 Submit a balanced budget

2 Maintain our 5% statutory requirement for reserve

3 Maintain compliance with state laws, policies and regulations (internal controls)

4 Teaching is the highest priority and faulty layoffs are the last resort

5 Health and safety of the campus must not be sacrificed

6 Preserve admission, financial aid, and registrar offices

7 Review non-instruction activities in light of mission and productivity

8 Develop efficiencies in the University’s administrative area as we leverage technology and ensure greater diversity of services to our students and vendors Source: Guiding Principles

These guiding principles were initially adhered to because the budget reductions were buffered by funds received from The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus) (See table 12). Unlike some other institutions in the state of Florida, which used stimulus funds to invest in various aspects of their academic enterprise, FAMU’s president decided to use the stimulus funds to save employee positions. However, once it was determined that additional cuts were on the horizon, specifically a proposed 15% cut to FAMU’s 2011-2012 budget, there were few alternatives available to aid in reducing expenses or raising funds. Restructuring was imminent.

Table 12

Florida A&M University’s Stimulus Funds

Year Stimulus Funds

2009-2010 $7,936,118.00

2010-2011 $8,460,902.00

Source: FAMU 2010-2011 Fact Book

The Restructuring Changes

On September 23, 2010 the FAMU Board of Trustee approved the development of a comprehensive restructuring plan. Less than six months later, on April 7, 2011, the FAMU Board of Trustees approved the final restructuring plan. The plan outlined the institutional changes, both academic and administrative, that were to occur between 2011-2014 in an effort to increase efficiency and productivity. Though the President’s Restructuring and Reinvestment Committee, made up of members of his Leadership Team, was encouraged to refer to the “Guiding

Principles” that helped direct decision making in the previous 2 years of budget cuts (2008-

2010), in an effort to guide the work in the restructuring plan the leadership team was directed to follow additional guidelines (See Table 13).

Table 13

Additional Restructuring Guidelines 2011

Guidelines

1 Reduce administrative costs

2 Eliminate low productivity programs

3 Reduce duplication in course offerings

4 Reduce duplicate in administrative process

5 Reduce energy costs

6 Implement private sector expertise where appropriate

7 Increase revenue

Source: Additional Guidelines

In order to meet the directive of the FAMU Board of Trustees and university president, restructuring of academic and administrative units was essential and would require several changes within each of these areas. In total approximately $18.8 million was reduced from the budget and 24 programs were terminated (Board of Trustees Restructuring Report, April 2011).

Additionally 242 of FAMU’s total 1470 positions were eliminated (see table 14). Only ten of those positions were tenured faculty, including three from the School of General Studies, two from the School of Graduate Studies, one from Academic Affairs, and four from the Mulrennen

Lab (Board of Trustees Restructuring Report, April 2011).

Table 14

Florida A&M University Restructuring Staff and Cost Reduction

University Area Faculty/Staff Reductions Budget Reductions

Academic Affairs 70 staff, 4 faculty $4,395,646

Student Affairs 10 staff $628,139

Administrative/Financial Services 24 staff $1,595,980

Other Personnel Services (OPS)2 0 staff $2,400,000

Enterprise Information Technology (EIT) 16 staff $832,000

President’s Office 3 staff $150,000

Academic Programs 6 faculty $324,892

Stimulus (2010-2011) 109 staff $8,460,942

Total 242 faculty and staff $18,787,599

Source: Investing in the Future of FAMU: FAMU Restructuring Plan for 2011-2014 (Background)

Academic Restructuring

Academic restructuring at FAMU was compromised of 3 major changes including: (1) elimination of 3 non-instructional units, (2) the reorganization of colleges and schools, and (3) academic program elimination.

The budget reductions that began in fiscal year 2007-2008 and continued for several years prompted FAMU to develop Guiding Principles to manage how decisions were made while resources declined. Though the federal stimulus funds provided a short-term buffer for the drastic cuts that would eventually have to occur, it was well known that the funds would not last

2 OPS positions are at will temporary positions. Selected OPS positions were eliminated in order to have cost savings

71 beyond 2 years. In an effort to stay true to the Guiding Principles and protect instruction at

FAMU, decisions were made to eliminate 3 non-instructional units: (1) The Mulrennan

Laboratory in Panama City, (2) The School of General Studies, and (3) The School of Graduate

Studies.

The Mulrennan Laboratory was a state research laboratory that provided “new technologies, new strategies, and basic information on Florida's nuisance and pest mosquitoes”

(Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory). State aid to mosquito pest control was cut by 40% and Florida Governor Rick Scott denied requests for $500,000 in non-recurring funds to keep the lab open, thus forcing the close of the facility.

The decision was made to transfer the responsibilities and functions of The School of

Graduate Studies into other academic areas (see table 15). Each school and college became responsible for the review and admission of graduate students into their respective areas.

Administrative duties, once the responsibility the Dean of Graduate Studies, were transferred to the Assistant Vice President of Sponsored Research, who was now housed in the Office of

Sponsored Research. Many of the responsibilities and functions of The School of General

Studies were also transferred into other areas in the university (see table 16). Additionally, the creation of the Office of Retention absorbed several of the duties performed by the School of

General Studies. Elimination of these 3 units totaled $8.4 million, previously covered with stimulus funds, and 109 staff members (see table 14).

Table 15

School of Graduate Studies Activity Reassignment

School of Graduate Studies (Prior Function) New Responsibility Areas

Recruitment Academic Units/Office of Sponsored Research

Admission Academic Units/Office of Sponsored Research

Assistantships Office of Sponsored Research

Health Insurance Coordinator Office of Sponsored Research

Grant Identification, Writing, Submission, Academic Units/Office of Sponsored Research Mgmt Management of Graduate Facility Office of Sponsored Research

Student Support Academic Units/Office of Sponsored Research

Source: Investing in the Future FAMU: FAMU Restructuring Plan for 2011-2014 (Background)

Table 16

School of General Studies Activity Reassignment

School of General Studies (Prior Function) New Responsibility Areas

Academic Advising Office of University Retention/Academic Units

College Level Achievement Skills (CLAS) Testing Service Bureau

College Preparatory (C-Prep) Academic Units (Math and English)

Study Skills Center Writing Resource Center, The Math Lab, Engineering and Science Support, Chemistry Tutorial Center Upward Bound Math and Science Continuing Education/Office of University Retention Upward Bound School of Business and Industry

Undergraduate Experience Programs Office of University Retention/Academic Units

Office of Special Programs (Summer Continuing Education Programs) Student Life Skills Course (SLS) Office of University Retention

Athletic Academic Advising Athletics

Source: Investing in the Future FAMU: FAMU Restructuring Plan for 2011-2014 (Background)

In October of 2008, nearly two years before the beginning of the restructuring process at

FAMU, the university Provost, Dr. Cynthia Hughes-Harris, appointed faculty members to a

Reorganization Task Group. The task group was chaired by Dr. Rodner B. Wright, Dean of the

School of Architecture, and consisted of a total of 34 faculty members from across the university. Dr. Wright charged the group with examining the effectiveness of the organizational structure of the academic units. Specifically, Dr. Hughes-Harris requested the task group to

“confirm the appropriateness of the existing organizational structure of [the] academic units or to provide recommendations of alternative structures that would strengthen the university and its commitment to academic growth and integrity” (Provost memo to Reorganization Task Force).

Additionally during this time Dr. Hughes Harris appointed an Academic Affairs Work

Group to develop a proposed methodology to assess the productivity of all academic programs at the university. Together, after nearly 2 years of working on this project, these groups created several documents including: (1) the methodology and activities of the Reorganization Task

Group; (2) their preliminary recommendations; and (3) the proposed methodology for program productivity analysis. These documents were distributed throughout the campus community and then focus groups with FAMU faculty were held to help refine the proposed administrative structure from the recommendations of the Reorganization Task Group and to recommend next steps on the program productivity methodology.

During the week of January 10, 2011 the results of the focus group discussions were posted on a reorganization webpage for comment from the faculty. The Reorganizational Task

Group gathered all of the feedback and presented final recommendations to the Provost, who later shared them with the core restructuring team. These recommendations, along with recommendations provided by the consulting firm MGT of America’s analysis of FAMU’s peer and aspirational institutions were used to reorganize the academic structure of the university (see table 17). The FAMU Board of Trustees later approved the new academic organizational structure.

Table 17

Florida A&M University Institutional Peer and Aspirational Institutions

Institutional Peers Aspirational Institutions

Cleveland State University Old Dominion University

Howard University University of Louisville

North Carolina A&T State University George Mason University

Nova Southeastern University University of Arkansas-Main-Campus

University of Texas, Arlington Temple University

Source: Florida A&M University Peer Institutions and Aspirational Institutions

Table 18

Florida A&M University Colleges & School Reorganization

Existing Structure Approved Structure College of Arts and Sciences College of Behavioral Sciences, Arts, and Humanities College of Education College of Education College of Engineering College of Science, Sciences, Technology, and Technology, and Mathematics Agriculture College of Law College of Law College of Pharmacy and College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Pharmaceutical Sciences Environmental Science School of Environmental Institute Sciences FAMU/FSU College of FAMU/FSU College of Engineering Engineering School of Allied Health School of Allied Health Sciences School of Architecture School of Architecture School of Business and School of Business and Industry Industry School of Journalism and School of Journalism and Graphic Communication Graphic Communication School of Nursing School of Nursing School of General Studies College of Agriculture School of Graduate Studies School of Public Health Source: Assessment of Alternative Academic Structures/Excellence in a New Era: Developing the Millennial FAMUan

One of the goals of the restructuring process was of strengthening academic units while managing financial constraints. Program reduction was inevitable. FAMU had not participated in a program review in several years, and the decision to restructure presented an essential opportunity. The President’s Restructuring and Reinvestment Committee developed the methodology employed in the program review using the restructuring Strategic Initiatives and feedback from faculty and staff focus groups held in January and February of 2011.

The emphasis of the methodology was highlighting both program productivity and need.

The critical factors considered in the productivity of an academic program were enrollment of majors, degrees awarded, student full time equivalents (FTE), sponsored research awards, cost per credit hour, and return on investment (ROI) on research. In the model, programs were either labeled high productivity or low productivity. Academic productivity was determined by metrics, which yielded a program score. These scores were placed into ranges, which then determined a program’s productivity level. Need was determined by whether a program was on the SUS Board of Governors’ list of critical needs in education, health, STEM fields, security and emergency services, and globalization. In the analysis, programs were either labeled high need or low need.

If a program was on the list, it was designated as high need; if not, it was designated as low need.

All academic programs were reviewed and their productivity and need were assessed. Programs were then assigned to one of four quadrants: (1) high need, high productivity, (2) low need, high productivity, (3) high need, low productivity, and (4) low need, low productivity.

The program review was not purely a quantitative exercise; additional qualitative “filters” were utilized to assess the programs. These filters included programs central to the FAMU mission, programs that represented a strength of FAMU and its priorities for the future, programs that provided significant potential for future growth through radical redesign, and programs that had comparable productivity to similar programs at peer institutions. Additionally, programs that fell into quadrants 2 (low need, high productivity), quadrant 3 (high need, low productivity) and quadrant 4 (low need, low productivity) were requested to provide information in response to the following questions:

1. Provide summary information on any concerns or issues within your program that may

not be addressed by quantitative data.

2. How do you see your department and its program(s) contributing to the realization of the

University’s strategic vision?

3. List any existing or expected interdisciplinary or inter-university activities in which your

program is engaged.

4. What disciplinary, national or international trends do you anticipate that may impact your

program, and what impact may they have?

5. How will your program contribute to generating revenue for the University? Please be

specific.

Based upon feedback from the additional analysis the president recommended that several programs that were labeled “low need, low productivity” and “high need, low productivity” be spared. Most of these recommendations were based on the relevance of the program to the university mission, the high enrollment of the program, or the importance of the program in addressing workforce needs. In total 24 programs were eliminated (see table 19).

Table 19

Florida A&M University Academic Program Elimination

College/School Programs Eliminated College of Engineering Sciences, Technology, 1. Landscape Design & Management (BS) and Agriculture 2. Civil Engineering Technology (BS) 3. Manufacturing Engineering Technology (BS) 4. International Agriculture and Business (BS) School of Journalism and Graphic 5. Graphic Communication (BS) Communication 6. Journalism (MS) College of Education 7. Adult Education (MS/MEd) 8. Business Education (BS) 9. Business Education (MS/MEd) 10. English Education (MS/MEd) 11. Mathematics Education (MS/MEd) 12. Social Sciences Education (MS/MEd) 13. Industrial arts/Technology Education (MS/MEd) 14. Secondary Education (MS/MEd) 15. Science Education (MS/MEd) College of Arts and Sciences 16. Art Education (BS) 17. School Psychology (MS/MeS) 18. Music Performance (BA) 19. Jazz Studies (BS) 20. French (BA) 21. Spanish (BA) School of Architecture 22. Landscape Architecture (MLA) School of Allied Health 23. Cardiopulmonary Science (BS) School of Business and Industry 24. Business/Managerial Economics (BS) Source: Programs Terminated and Suspended by BOT April 7, 2011

Though many of the programs that were eliminated had no students, some programs had enrolled students. Programs without students were closed immediately, programs with students were placed on teach-out plans. These plans provided a timeline for getting enrolled students graduated in 2-3 years.

Academic Administrative Restructuring

Academic Administrative restructuring at FAMU was comprised of one major change, the reduction of academic administrative personnel. In focus groups of faculty and staff, efficiency and productivity within the academic administrative areas were emphasized.

Academic administrative personnel are employees who provide support to the academic units.

These employees fell within 3 categories: (1) Administrative and Professional (A&P), (2)

University Support and Personnel System (USPS), and (3) temporary personnel also known as

Other Personnel Services (OPS).

Led by the Provost, Dr. Cynthia Hughes-Harris and her staff, a methodology was created to determine a plan for staff reduction, specifically the reduction of A&P and USPS personnel.

First, the number of faculty, A&P and USPS employees, and students was compiled for each academic unit. This data was used to determine the dollar amount each unit would have to reduce their budget. In total nearly $4,395,646 was to be reduced from the academic administrative units

(see table 14). On March 14, 2011 each Dean was given the respective dollar amount for their academic unit. Deans were then given the opportunity to provide suggestions and recommendations on how they could reduce their budgets by the predetermined amount.

Reduction of staff was inevitable and overall the administrative academic units let go nearly 70 staff members (see table 14).

Administrative Restructuring

Administrative restructuring at FAMU was compromised of 3 major changes including:

(1) the employment of Transformation through Technology Enhancements (T3E), (2) the creation of the Administrative Service Assistance Program, and (3) the development of The Office of

Retention.

Several years before the restructuring process began FAMU made a $50 million investment in their technological resources with the purchase of PeopleSoft products (famu.edu;

Excellence in a New Era: FAMU Restructuring Plan, 2011). For several years the university received a very low return on investment (ROI), but once the president and his leadership team took office a new emphasis was placed on fully leveraging the resources.

The T3E project was designed to enhance the capabilities of the PeopleSoft (iRattler) system so the university could improve its core business processes. The first phase focused on reengineering administrative and financial services to enhance efficiency. In total 15 processes were reengineered including travel, payroll, and purchasing. The next phase included re- implementing PeopleSoft modules to “leverage the technology” and make the new business processes a reality. Additionally, the team also implemented change management strategies to assist with accommodating the transition to new roles and activities related to the new business processes. Following the completion of the T3E project expectations included (Excellence in a

New Era: FAMU Restructuring Plan, 2011):

• Faster processing of travel reimbursements requests

• More efficient and timely purchasing processes

• More efficient and timely payment of bills

• Better control and management of assets

• Better streamlined recruitment and hiring of employees

• Greatly simplified financial statement development

• Efficient and effective overall financial management and reporting processes

In anticipation of the reduction in administrative support staff the Division of

Administrative and Financial Services developed a centralized unit, the Administrative Service

Assistance Program (ASAP). ASAP is responsible for managing the financial, human resources, and administrative responsibilities for departments across the campus. In addition, the program enhances efficiency by standardizing and streamlining processes across campus departments.

“These processes standardize reports for budget reconciliation and management reports, budgetary control for purchasing, review disbursement documents, oversee travel transactions, process personnel appointment documents as well as time and leave entries” (Excellence in a

New Era: FAMU Restructuring Plan, April 2011). Each ASAP staff member will be assigned to departments within the various schools and colleges, thus creating synergies and partnerships to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in business processes.

The Office of Retention was developed to assist with creating a culture of academic success by providing students with academic support services. This office is a partnership between Academic Affairs and Student Affairs. It serves as the academic advising center for first and second year students and as a result of the elimination of the School of General Studies took on several of the activities once executed by that unit. Eventually, this office will house the

FAMU Academic Success Initiative, a unit designed to improve retention and graduation rates.

The restructuring changes at FAMU were extensive. In an effort to reduce the university budget significant academic and administrative changes had to be made including a nearly $19 million reduction in the university budget, the termination of 24 programs, and the elimination of

242 positions.

CHAPTER 5

RESTRUCTURING REFLECTIONS: EXPLORING PROCESS & OUTCOMES

The following chapter provides reflections on the restructuring process from a variety of university constituents. The perspectives of these individuals allowed me to examine the process of restructuring at Florida A&M University from its inception in September of 2010 through the approval of its final plan in April of 2011 and to examine the initial outcomes resulting from the restructuring planning process. Two major stories emerged in the analysis of the participant accounts: (1) the isomorphic tendency of university administrators to set a restructuring strategy that mimicked peer and aspirational institutions as FAMU attempted to reposition itself as a higher level research institution; and (2) the stratified institutional reality that reflected the institution’s challenges with increased profile admits, an inadequate academic support infrastructure, and a dedication to its historic mission of expanding access.

Exploring the Restructuring Process

Change was on the horizon for FAMU both administratively and academically in 2009.

The university had a new president, a new leadership team, reaffirmation of accreditation from

SACS, and a new strategic plan. The university was actively engaged in repositioning itself for the future. FAMU desired legitimacy, and institutional theory posits that it is achieve through isomorphism via the institutionalized environment (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Institutional

84 leaders understood that in order to reposition FAMU, the university would have to become similar to institutions that had already established legitimacy and prestige. In the state of Florida the most prestigious institutions were highly engaged in research and after several years of interim presidential leadership and a declining public image, the new university president and his leadership team wanted to legitimize FAMU by establish it as a high intensive research institution. Achieving this goal would require an influx of resources both human and financial, an evaluation of current schools and programs, and increased efficiency and effectiveness in administrative processes. These were the goals at the forefront of the minds of the leadership team, while they simultaneously experienced the drastic decline in state appropriations.

Instability in state funding for higher education, was not a new experience. In fact, the impact of the economy on colleges and universities began during the recession that occurred in the 1990’s (Williams, 1995). It was not a great surprise when the recession of the late 2000s began and state appropriations to higher education began to decrease in 2007. FAMU leadership attempted to respond to the reductions by making cuts that protected personnel. But, the budget reductions were forced into the forefront of the university agenda because they were continuous and extreme. Resource dependence theory provides an understanding of the institutional response to a constrained external environment. As financial resources become increasingly scarce, procuring resources becomes more important to institutional survival and institutions must obtain control over critical resources in an effort to reduce and manage dependence (Ulrich

& Barney, 1984). FAMU attempted to establish control over institutional resources by managing university spending. Each year as the budget was reduced the university responded by trying to reduce smaller expenses.

According to a member of the leadership team:

In fact, we took a series of cuts without laying people off, without restructuring, just by giving up vacant positions, cutting travel, cutting expense budgets, but you get to a point where the university would just become dysfunctional if you kept doing that.

Another administrator echoed these sentiments.

We had no idea that, it would be as long and as severe and sustained as it has been. And, so, um, we -- what we cut back, um, travel and we cut back everywhere that we could, not to affect people and not to affect the academic enterprise. So we tighten up there. Um, we had to do without a lot.

Restructuring is a decision that is a response to changes and pressures within the environment. Two specific pressures linked to restructuring are external pressures like the economy, politics, and technology, and institutional pressures including cost, quality, effectiveness and access (Gumport & Sporn, 1999). FAMU was experiencing both external and institutional pressures. The combination of the economic downturn and the institutional goals of enhancing educational quality and administrative effectiveness made restructuring seem like an inevitable solution. However, restructuring was not the initial response to these challenges.

FAMU was not the only institution plagued by declining financial resources. Higher education institutions across the country were dealing with declining endowments and federal and state appropriations, all a result of one of the worst economic recessions in U.S. history. The declining resources left higher education institutions vulnerable and faced with recalibrating university budgets and identifying new resources (Dill & Sporn, 1995; Gumport & Pusser,

1997).

In an effort to provide some relief to higher education institutions, the federal government responded by allocating a portion of the economic stimulus funds to higher education. In

February of 2009 nearly $53.6 billion was allocated to higher education (Lederman, 2009) with over $39.6 billion directed towards filling gaps in state budgets over a two-year period. Florida’s

86 public colleges and universities received nearly $600 million (Travis, 2010) along with additional funds for workforce grants and Pell grants. However, the stimulus program was only a short-term infusion of cash.

From the very beginning it was known that stimulus funds would only be available for two years. With this knowledge in hand, institutions made decisions about how to best utilize those dollars. There was a great deal of variability in how stimulus dollars were used by higher education institutions in the state of Florida. The University of Florida, the state’s most prestigious public institution used stimulus dollars to create nearly 100 new positions in the

STEM fields (Travis, 2010). Simultaneously, the institution raised tuition by 15% each year between 2009-2011, and restructured the university by reducing faculty and staff. Several other state institutions made similar decisions and reduced staff and departments and invested in

STEM areas. In contrast, FAMU, along with a few other institutions, used the stimulus funds to retain staff members, a decision that was steeped in controversy.

FAMU’s decision appears contrary to institutional theory that suggests that an institution lacking prestige, like FAMU, would mimic the actions of a prestigious institution like the

University of Florida and make similar decisions regarding the stimulus investment, especially since FAMU desired to enhance its position as a research institution. However, Powell (1991) argued that institutionalization occurs along a continuum and while institutions desiring legitimacy may be pressured to institutionalize, factors such as cultural and resources constraint may make it extremely challenging. Additionally, DiMaggio & Powell (1983) asserted that strategies by individual organizations within an organizational field might not be rational choices for other institutions within a field. FAMU’s severe economic constraints may have prompted different strategic choices.

Stimulus Funding: For Better or for Worse

The controversy surrounding FAMU’s use of the stimulus funds were related to the motivation behind the president’s decision. Some university leaders believed the decision to use stimulus fund to keep staff members employed was an act of kindness by the university president. The FAMU motto for nearly two decades was “Excellence with Caring.” This motto described the culture of the institution, a place where excellence was the desired goal and was to be achieved while concurrently investing in, engaging with, and caring for people connected to the university. This motto was embraced by the university community, which in many ways mimicked a family. This culture of caring may have been a cultural constraint that influenced the president to make the decision to preserve jobs. According to a member of the leadership team it was this sense of caring that drove the university president to preserve jobs with the stimulus funds rather than initiate restructuring.

When, when the stimulus came, instead of investing the stimulus money into, um, cutting staff and investing the stimulus into other processes, of the university, we used just about all of our stimulus money to, um, to keep people employed. And, um, and we were kind -- while most people; shed staff, took the extra stimulus money and made investments into the university.

Another member of the leadership team provided more detail about the role of the caring culture.

But what we realized, when we looked at that process, early on was that most of our people that would be affected were, female, heads of households. And at the time, we, we thought that while the economy was headed in a downward spiral, that, um, it would be a terrible time to throw people off the bus, at that point, because you'd ruin families and, and just, it just [would] not be a good thing.

Another administrator echoed this reason.

And the reason why we hadn’t had cuts is because Dr. Ammons felt like the people employed here in Tallahassee could not find employment elsewhere because of the economy and he tried to make sure that they kept their jobs as long as he could allow them to keep the job. So he's been criticized for that, you know, people were saying, well, you should have let some go in 2007, 2008, 2009, and it wouldn't have been this massive number in 2010.

FAMU, an HBCU with a predominately black staff, was one of the largest employers of black residents in the city. Without many alternative employers, especially with two of the other local employers being higher education institutions, layoffs would affect the community at large and especially the black community. But, not everyone was convinced that the president’s motivations were connected to the effect of unemployment on communities and families.

One of the most vocal critics of this decision came from a member of the Board of

Trustees. The trustee believed the president’s decision had less to do with kindness and more to do with a political move to gain affection and allegiance from university constituents.

So there were a bunch of stimulus funds that were made available to universities. We got some. And what smart universities did, and we were of the mind we should do, is take that as a two year, temporary fix to kind of get your house in order. So what smart universities did, is did the restructuring, used those stimulus funds to tide them over, and do the restructuring and then when the stimulus funds ran out, which we all knew they were in only, you know, two years, you were already done and ready.

The Trustee believed the president made a huge tactical error that was very costly to the university both strategically and financially, all in an effort to make gains politically.

My opinion was it was a very, very poor decision, I was very vocal with the president about it, and the very poor decision was he made a tactical error, which you know, it's an error with regard to the, the viability of the university, he made an error and he decided to take those stimulus funds to save jobs, because he was like, hey, he -- you know, he didn't have the -- he didn't have the, uh, the desire from a political standpoint to cut jobs, even though it was like everybody, every state university has to do it, you know, we just had to do it, but he just didn't do it. So we took that stimulus money and we moved a bunch of people on the stimulus, so there you have people who lose jobs that essentially didn't need to exist anymore, but we used stimulus money to kind of save them.

If the president’s decision was actually politically motivated it was clear that it was not successful, rather than gratefulness, people were both angry and hurt.

According to the trustee the decision was a failure.

He didn't get any credit for that, like you know, he thought it was going to be this big political thing, well, you know, people -- the people that were saved didn't really ever perceive that they were going to be losing their job in the first place, so when their jobs were saved, it wasn’t really a big deal for them, because they didn't -- they didn't know that they -- those jobs were going to be lost. So then, when they had to be lost, they were just pissed. So all we did was waste two years' worth of money that could have been going to something else.

According to institutional theory, coercive isomorphism can be a result of subtle and understated cultural pressures linked to cultural and community values and traditions (DiMaggio

& Powell, 1983). HBCUs in general, and FAMU specifically, have long held traditions and values connected to the community, which often extends beyond the campus. FAMU is a campus community that operated as an extension of the local community, meaning the family and friendship ties that occurred outside of the campus often spread on the campus. Layoffs at

FAMU would affect not only the campus community but also the surrounding community.

Situated in a small town, coworkers often run into each other at church, gyms, and grocery stores. It is then understandable that the university president would attempt to put off layoffs as long as possible for both political and personal reasons.

Restructuring as a Strategic Decision

The budget cuts that began in 2007 continued, even during the two years that the university used stimulus to support staff salaries. By 2010, restructuring was no longer an option it was inevitable.

According to an administrator, the decision to restructure was not a surprise.

We've got to restructure and see what can we eliminate to come up [with] the money, but maintain our quality of service and academic programs. And so those were the discussions that we had long before we actually went into the, you know, the restructuring process and the reporters were there with us having those discussions. So when it came down to the point where we had to really make these drastic cuts, it wasn’t a surprise, because it was a -- you know, it was a conversation that we've had all along.

Knowing that restructuring was imminent the leadership team agreed that the process would have to be a strategic one. Restructuring in its truest sense was a managerial strategy grounded in the “the tenets of strategic planning, mission reaffirmation, environmental scanning, goal formation, and evaluations and revision” (Myers, 1996, p.70). Resource dependence theory echoes the role of environmental scanning as a vital tool, needed to identify opportunities and threats in the external environment, and to select the most favorable and profitable solutions to manage environmental resource constraints (Scott, 1992). The university leadership team, similar to other institutions encountering budget reduction, had already attempted to make cuts at the periphery of the university. They had exhausted virtually all options and cutting vacant positions, while protecting filled jobs, put the university quality at risk.

An administrator from Academic Affairs addressed this very issue.

And when you cut -- when you give up vacant positions, that's not a strategic cut. So you may have had vacant positions, uh, in faculty in some of your priority areas, when you give up those vacant positions, then your prestigious programs start diminishing in quality. So you can't keep doing that, the, the cuts have to be more strategic. And that's probably what was the primary impetus. So once they realized that something had to happen in terms of restructuring, then they began discussing how can you do it to really, not just for damage control, but to really position the university for the future. So to make it a stronger university, not just, uh, not just survival, but making it stronger.

The leadership team desired for the restructuring process to complement other institutional processes that were occurring simultaneously. According to a staff member in the president’s office the university was in the midst of implementing the strategic plan and altering administrative processes, in an effort to better the position of FAMU to reach it’s goals.

Now we were already looking at what we call transformational change and reengineering a lot of our administrative processes. So for us to marry that with this, uh, with our strategic view of becoming more of a research one, then that became a really good place for when the board asked us, how are we on looking at restructuring the university to meet these needs, and how do we ensure that they're not competing needs, but they're complementary needs, you know that whatever resolutions we come up with will complement where we're trying to go. So that's sort of the backdrop.

This emphasis on strategic decision-making in the process is what distinguishes FAMU’s restructuring from what is commonly considered as retrenchment. Retrenchment in a higher education context is often a response to budget cuts and reductions in federal and state appropriations. This differs from restructuring which, rather than simply a tool for financial crisis management, is a strategy with goals grounded in enhancing access, improving quality, reducing costs and creating administrative and academic efficiencies (Gumport & Pusser, 1997). The

FAMU restructuring process was the embodiment of this definition, as dual causes were attributed to the initiation of the process—institutional positioning, which fueled some of the academic changes, and budget cuts, which drove several of the administrative changes.

A member of the president’s staff identified those two reasons.

I think the real -- two major reasons stemmed from one, the university wanting to look at, um, how effective and efficient it was and making sure that it was structured and positioning itself in a way to be, um, relevant and successful, you know, 10, 15, 20, 50 years out. Um, so I think that was primarily the driving force. What kicked it into fast gear, um, so it then became kind of the second major reason was, um, the budget cuts that we were experiencing, um, from our state budget.

Restructuring at FAMU was billed by university leadership, not as a simple cost-cutting exercise, but as an opportunity to reach university goals, which were largely academic in nature, while being as efficient as possible with limited university resources. This is why both academic and administrative restructuring occurred in tandem.

According to an administrator in Academic Affairs:

The relationship between academic restructuring and administrative restructuring… neither of those could have occurred in isolation. And both of them occurred because the other one was occurring. The interdependency was, it was and is, critical.

Another administrator echoed this sentiment by identifying the uniqueness of executing administrative and academic restructuring at the same time.

It's fairly unique for any institution, really, to focus on something that's not immediate. As we were doing our overview, it became quite clear that most people were looking either at their administrative functions or their academic functions for restructuring. We found a lot of plans out there that primarily focused on realigning or restructuring the academic units. You'll see a lot of places where they reduced their College of Arts and Sciences into smaller component groups for better synergy. Or you'll see the opposite; you'll see where they really focused on administrative. Well, for us, like I said, it made very good sense for us to look at both.

The view of what was the most central aspect of the restructuring plans depended significantly on the position and perspective of the interview participant. Participants most closely connected with the academic areas of the university saw restructuring as an administrative process that was integrated into an academic process. In contrast, participants most closely aligned with the administrative areas of the university saw the restructuring process as a series of financial decisions that would impact the university’s academic structure.

Prior to the beginning of the restructuring process at FAMU the university was engaged in a complete overhaul of their academic structure. In 2008 the Provost organized a

Reorganization Task Group to examine the academic structure of the university.

A member of that task group stated the following:

At that time, we were not talking about university restructuring, we were talking about, in fact, the challenge, the -- the charge that was given to that group, was to look at our current academic structure and determine, um, that it is meeting our needs, uh, in terms of effectiveness, in terms of efficiency, in terms of relevance to, uh, today and tomorrow's society.

Following an extensive strategic planning period at the university there was enhanced interest in re-examining the academic structure of the university, which had not changed in several decades. The Reorganization Task Group planned to explore the need for changing the academic structure by examining each of the university’s colleges, schools, departments and

93 academic programs. This task force met for nearly two years, and in those two years the FAMU budget received severe cuts, shifting the priorities of the task group.

According to a member of the leadership team:

And when they started, we weren’t talking budget, as they were engaged, budget issues began to really guide our everyday thinking, maybe not even guide, dominate, our everyday thinking. Well, we reached the point of saying we are now challenged with reducing our budget significantly. How might we go about doing that? Well, 68% of the university is academic in nature, however you phrase it, frame it or describe it, so one arena certainly has to be the academic structure. And that's the point that the academic Reorganization Task Group connected with the restructuring initiatives.

Too Late to Restructure

It was the FAMU Board of Trustees that encouraged and eventually demanded the restructuring of the university. According to Pfeffer and Salancik’s (1978) view of resource dependence theory, boards of directors, or trustees in the case of higher education, play a critical role in helping universities manage their external dependence. While the academic structure and position of the institution was important to the university, members of the FAMU Board of

Trustees saw restructuring as a financial and administrative decision that was necessary for institutional survival.

A member of the president’s staff stated this point.

The Board of Trustees has several major businessmen and women on it. And so they were -- they understood the importance of restructuring, so that you have a viewpoint of creating new revenue, um, in [a time of] declining revenue, you know, backdrop, but also a way of more, um, effectively managing the resources that you have. And they were looking at it primarily from an administrative viewpoint.

One key member of the FAMU Board of Trustees was a corporate executive who was very familiar with restructuring in their profession and brought that experience to the role on the board. According to resource dependence theory, board members provide a variety of resources to the organizations they serve including counsel, advice and legitimacy (Pfeffer & Salancik,

1978; Hillman et al., 2009). As a business professional familiar with large restructuring efforts the trustee provided university leaders with a corporate view of restructuring.

This trustee stated:

So, uh, my primary role as it relates to the board, and professionally, you know, as an executive, I've been through this, through recession, so I've had some experience, conceptually and philosophically with taking a large organization, through a focused restructuring, where again, you can edit some of the things that are nice to have, and, and trim around the edges to save money and then reinvest in, in your core programs so that you can make it through the tough times and emerge core strong.

However, the trustee believed the decision to restructure should have been made sooner, especially since the University of Florida and Florida State University, other institutions in the

State University System, had already made the decision to restructure more than a year earlier.

A lot of universities were doing it, the primary factor had to do with the significant reduction in state funding. It almost necessitated it, because it just wasn’t the same amount of resources coming from the state. The reduction of resources forced a fundamental rethink on how the university, was supported. I think that was one. Two was, uh, you can’t continue to spread fewer resources over the same group of schools and programs.

The trustee concluded by saying, “We were very, very reactive. And to do this thing right, you have to be very proactive.”

The trustee was not alone in the thoughts about earlier action on the part of FAMU. Even students believed that restructuring should have taken place earlier.

According to a student leader:

I think the restructuring should have – should have been done three years prior, because a lot of universities were able to really cut back the fat, that they had early on and save a lot of money. So when they got to that point where it was a budget crisis, they were just fine, because they had – they had enough cushion and – and things of that sort. So you can kind of, I guess, and so you look at, um, Florida State did this and also, um, I think the University of Florida did early on, and so they – they had a lot of cushion, um, between those three years, four years, to really be prepared for the budget crisis, ‘cause they saw, you know, how the – how the economy was going and how the, um, the tax, um, money was declining.

While resource dependence theory provides an understanding of the decision to pursue restructuring, according to Sherer and Lee (2002) it does not identify how organizations are enabled to engage in this change behavior. However, institutional theory does provide insight into the timing of change and connects it with the concept of legitimacy, and how an organization’s level of prestige can influence when and how it engages in change.

The University of Florida (UF), a member of the Association of American Universities

(AAU) and listed at 58th in the U.S. News and World Report rankings of national universities, is the most prestigious university in the state of Florida (ufl.edu, 2012; U.S. News & World Report,

2012). “Organizations with prestige have the legitimacy to act as initial and early adopters,”

(Sherer & Lee, 2002, p104). These institutions can experiment with change practices in ways that institutions, like FAMU, that are attempting to build prestige and enhance legitimacy cannot.

According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983) once a change process is proved acceptable or successful within an environment, the process of homogenization occurs, late adopters, like

FAMU, eventually implement the behavior.

Communication as a Priority

Knowing the topic of restructuring evoked varied responses from the university community, the president and his leadership team set out to ensure university constituents were informed about the process. According to Morphew (2000) faculty, administrators and even the institutional culture have a role in the restructuring process. The leadership team set out to keep all university constituents informed-faculty, staff, students, and alumni. A restructuring website was set up to provide an electronic location for restructuring documents, thus raising the level of transparency in the process. Memos were sent out on campus providing updates of the academic and administrative processes; focus groups were held with faculty, staff, and students; surveys

96 were administered to alumni; and town hall meetings were consistently held and open to the public.

An administrator explained why the leadership team chose this course of action.

Again, we learned from some of other institutions that had undergone restructuring, where they did not engage people or at least after they announced the restructured entity, the feedback from their people was: what? When did you all do this? Why didn't you tell us about this? We didn't know anything about this. And votes of no confidence emerged and you know, so, so we learned from some of those.

This was the kind of backlash that FAMU could not afford and did not want to have to address. However, the process was better received at FAMU because there was an important difference between restructuring at FAMU and at Florida State University and the University of

Florida, very few faculty members lost their jobs. In total FAMU only identified 10 tenured faculty members for layoffs. Additionally, university leaders referred to best practices outlined by the American Associate of University Professors (AAUP) as a guideline on addressing faculty layoffs due to university financial exigency. The university restructuring plan (2010) stated that the university “must ensure that faculty with tenure receive all benefits to which they are entitled” (p.11).

According to a senior administrator:

“We didn't get a lot of, um, negative feedback or negative publicity. We didn't get any negative publicity, which is unusual when you eliminate programs. Um, and I think it's because we, we tried not -- we weren’t doing it to cut faculty positions. When you cut faculty positions, that makes it really difficult.”

Even though restructuring did not target faculty, FAMU leaders believed that consistent communication from the university community was essential to the success of the restructuring effort. Though the restructuring process was inevitable, they wanted people to understand why restructuring was happening, what it entailed, and how they could contribute ideas and feedback.

A member of the president’s staff summed it up by saying, “I mean, if you're -- you're talking about change, uh, there has to be buy-in and to get to that buy-in, people have to be informed.”

Gaining buy-in from the university community was the principal charge given to

FAMU’s Chief Communication Officer. A communications plan was developed that identified several communication channels to help inform and engage the public about the restructuring process.

A university administrator described the communication through the process.

We had the forums where we actually provided or got input from the different stakeholders groups. We also received input through like a survey that we sent to all of our stakeholder groups, just to find out what their feelings are as we go into this restructuring, um, process. And as we went through this process, every step of the way, we kept the campus community informed whether it was through a forum, through campus-wide emails, or through the website where we posted information.

The transparency offered by the university throughout the restructuring process seemed quite unique, especially when comparing FAMU’s restructuring process to other institutions.

But, according to a member of the leadership team, transparency was one of the values stressed in the president’s administration from the very beginning of his tenure.

If you look at, uh, the work that we did around SACS reaffirmation, you're going to find a website. If you look at what we did around strategic planning, you're going to find a website. If you look at what we're doing, what we did with restructuring, going to find a website. That is a hallmark of the Ammons administration, its transparency. It is something that not only did the faculty ask for, the community asked for, university supporters asked for, and it makes sense. We are in a technological age where information is power and information is plentiful. So when you don’t have that, then you're not part of the public discourse at all, much less talk about the intellectual discourse.

Assumptions could be made that the communication in the restructuring process was flawless, but that would be incorrect. While some participants recognized the plethora of information that was made available to the public, they also critiqued the lack of comprehensive

98 and easy to understand documents needed to provide clear, direct, and holistic data about the restructuring process.

A university dean identified strengths and weaknesses with the communication during the restructuring process.

So on the one hand, I think, you know, there was a whole website created, there were a lot of documents that were placed out there, people had access to stuff. There were town hall meetings, focus groups, a whole host of things. So I think on the one hand, did a good job communicating. Now flip that, why was it necessarily a weakness is -- maybe things could have been communicated better. Um, maybe, no, there were a lot of documents on the website, um, and everybody may or may not read all of them.

The FAMU Restructuring webpage provided access to a plethora of data related to the restructuring process, but much of it was disjointed and challenging to connect. It also seemed that the communication initially flowed through many channels, but as it grew closer to the end of the planning process, less information was distributed to alumni and those outside of the university. Additionally, some information connected to the restructuring process was available on the university website, but not on the actual restructuring page, resulting in increased time and effort to located the information. Finally, while there were initial opportunities for university constituents to communicate their feedback to university leadership, as the process moved forward those opportunities diminished.

What is Everyone Else Doing?

In an effort to create a restructuring plan that assisted FAMU in achieving its institutional positioning and budget reduction goals, the leadership team looked first to peer institutions.

Specifically, the administrators looked to aspirational institutions with high levels of research capacity. A consulting firm, MGT of America, was hired to gather information about the academic structures of FAMU’s peer institutions. This behavior is an example of isomorphism.

In an effort to achieve legitimacy, prestige and survival, FAMU, with goals of achieving

Research I status knew it model itself after institutions with higher levels of prestige if it ever wanted to reach the status of these institutions (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

An administrator in Academic Affairs stated:

As we prepare for tomorrow, and as we look at what our peers…Where our peers are going, where our peers are, where our aspirational peers are going, where other folks who may not even be on our peer list, but they're also research institutions who are doing a lot of good things and getting a lot of good funding for it.

Restructuring plans of peer institutions were reviewed heavily before and during the development of the FAMU restructuring plan. According to academic and administrative staff these institutions included predominantly white institutions and other HBCUs.

An academic administrator stated the following:

We talked to Howard, we talked to Missouri, we talked to multiple programs who had undergone, um, restructuring, and learned from some of their mistakes.

A senior administrator echoed this point.

And we were guided a lot by some of our colleagues at, um, I think it was Arizona, Howard University, um, I think Tennessee State, I, I forget all of those plans now, but we had a big notebook with all of those plans in them, that we reviewed pretty carefully. And, and we had a couple of conversations with people at Howard University and their restructuring.

Faculty Involvement: Too Much or Too Little?

Research on restructuring points to the shrinking role of faculty members and the growing role of administrators in the decision making process. Faculty members are now known as “managed professionals” and administrators as “managerial professionals” (Rhoades, 1998).

According to Gumport (2000) administrators had the primary responsibility of managing the relationship between the university and the environment. According to Baldridge et. al. (1978),

“institutions that are virtually captive to strong environmental pressures have faculties that are very weak in the governance process” and “heavy environmental dependency also results in a

100 strong ‘dominant coalition’ of administrators” (p. 207). While this was indeed reflective in the

FAMU restructuring process, many participants believed one of the central lessons that university leadership learned by observing restructuring at other institutions was the importance of faculty involvement in the restructuring process.

According to an administrator from Academic Affairs the inclusion of faculty was a lesson learned through the restructuring process at the Florida State University.

We talked to FSU, that it had, had a -- the year before, it done some radical closing of programs and got a radical -- headlines and pushback from faculty. We learned from them, don’t do it that way. Um, as we engaged in our administrative restructuring activities and staff reductions, we did that, learned -- I mean, we just sat and watched FSU. Our lawyers read the court documents. What they didn't do was this. Okay, so we have to do that. What they did do was this and it worked. We'll do that. What they did do was that, and it didn't work -- we're not going to do it -- I mean, we, we learned from, from our colleagues that went before us.

Even before the restructuring process began the university leaders knew that faculty participation was necessary in this change effort. However, rather than utilize the FAMU Faculty

Senate, university leadership created the Reorganization Task Group and appointed 35 faculty members from varying departments across campus. This group was organized to present recommendations for the restructuring plan, but ultimately the faculty, via the Reorganization

Task or the faculty senate, did not have the authority of a final vote or approval or the restructuring plan.

An administrator describes this process.

That committee, the – the first challenge was now who should be in that reorganization task group? Because everybody who is not on it, is going to say, well, how come I’m not on it? Or how come my entity is not on it. So it had to be cross-representational, which made it end up being somewhere about 30 to 35 people.

101

The 35 members of this committee were expected to not only actively engage in the committee activities but also help with communication to other faculty members across campus.

This ultimately helped pave the way for a more informed and involved faculty once the restructuring process officially began.

A member of the leadership team for academic affairs stated the following:

So the task group carved out opportunities for both information sharing and information processing, and group processing of information. We had a faculty planning conferences annually, we [had] sub-faculty planning conferences in between. So using existing mechanisms, they were able to -- to communicate. Now the reason that was important, because as we jump ahead to actual restructuring, if we had not said along the way what we're talking about, I think our feedback and reaction and response from faculty would have been quite different.

With 35 faculty members on the committee, disagreement was inevitable. However, the debates and disagreements amongst faculty were described by a participant as collegial and as an integral aspect of strengthening shared governance at the university.

The administrator observed the following in the committee meetings.

And it was a heated debate. It was a collegial debate, uh, it was one of those things that made you proud to be a faculty member, because here were these, um, you know really intelligent, credentialed, thoughtful, committed people debating the future of their program as it related to the future of this university.

The administrator continued to describe the open dialogue that characterized the meetings.

Well, I think that exemplified the fact that even if – even if somebody disagreed with an outcome, they were never able to say they didn’t have a chance to voice their thoughts and opinions. And that, that pervaded all of the restructuring, all of it.

The administrator concluded by describing one of the positive outcomes of the process.

I believe that restructuring, um, contributed to the beginning of an era of reinforcing our commitment to shared governance, because I really do think that our processes epitomized shared governance.

102

Contrary to this view of an entirely inclusive process, one of the university’s deans was disappointed by the limited opportunity available for feedback for faculty and staff. This specifically pointed to the process of eliminating staff within in their school.

Uh, the university came to us with, um, their numbers of what they said our graduation rate was, what our enrollment rate was. And then identified these programs as targets for, uh, elimination. Uh, if there was any discussion, it was perfunctory. We never got the chance to come back to our faculty and to say, guys, we've got to do whatever, whatever, whatever, so that we can grow these programs in a measure that is compliant with whatever the university, whatever the Board of Governors determined that level of compliance to be. Uh, and I think that was unfortunate, I think that was disappointing.

They just gave us a number and said you have to reduce your budget by this number. No matter how many people were affected by it, no matter what functionalities you were eliminating.

It might be surmised that there was a disconnect between the accounts of faculty inclusion from administrators and the experience of the dean. However, another dean offered a different explanation of faculty inclusion.

So, um, information was shared…the provost has a dean's council meeting that meets typically monthly, so information was shared during those dean's council meetings. I would typically then share that information with the faculty during our faculty and staff meetings. So we have two standing faculty and staff meetings a semester. Um, and so I would share that then, and if there was a need to actually call a call meeting, I would also do that. Um, there were several times that I did do that, so that I could make sure that I got faculty input and not just from a -- I tell you and it stops there, but for them to actually sit down, work out some things, put some things on paper and then be able to take that back and give it back to the provost and, and the committee that was working on it.

It is interesting that the deans offered two very different experiences and seemed to indicate that faculty and staff participation in restructuring may have been influenced by the involvement and engagement of the respective deans of the schools and colleges. One of the deans had been engaged with administration and university planning before the restructuring process, while the other had not. The “engaged” dean served on several university committees.

103

This dean’s proximity to university leadership while serving on various committees may have provided a greater understanding of the university’s goals amid the declining budget. This may have prompted the dean to be more proactive in the restructuring process to ensure their college/school was positioned well and faculty and staff protected.

Ultimately the “engaged” dean lost very few positions and only one academic program, which had not had enrolled students for several years. In contrast, the other dean headed a school that was extremely vulnerable in the restructuring process because it was staff heavy and relied on staff members to run several auxiliary units.

According to the dean:

I lost, uh, the equivalent of a third of our staff.

And these cuts have, uh, have damaged our ability to do what we are, um, what we are commissioned to do. Um, I even lost my IT guy. And, the person we had here, we had also invested in them and provided them some specialized training for our -- for our highly technical workflow. And basically the university has jeopardized everything we have built and invested in over the years. I've got a…facility that needs constant monitoring, engineering, IT support. All of my computer labs and all of that has been put at risk. So I don’t see this as a, a reinvestment. I see it as jeopardizing our fundamental ability to do what we need to do, to service these students.

While the dean believed there were limited opportunities for engagement in the restructuring process, one of the FAMU Trustees believed that the engagement of the university constituents in the restructuring process was excessive and exposed the lack of vision and leadership from the university president.

There was no plan, there was no vision, so the notion of allowing faculty and, you know, student representatives to opine on things, is, is not good, because the other thing about being a leader, the reason why you get paid the most money is because you know more stuff than everybody else. You have more data inputs, you know, students don’t know what you know. Faculty doesn't always know what you know. Their interests are parochial, you know. So it's just never a good process or I think to be so open-ended in the beginning, you have to be a bit more directive.

104

It’s apparent the trustee had a corporate view of leadership and lacked value in shared governance. It can be inferred that the trustee’s conception of a leader is limited to the corporate environment, which relies heavily on the CEO of a business as the primary person responsible for decision-making. This is in contrast to the academic environment, which involves faculty members, in some manner, in nearly all university decision. FAMU faculty presence seemed pervasive with faculty represented on numerous committees and even serving as a voting member of the FAMU Board of Trustees.

Research on restructuring sites one of the primary challenges as the tendency to assume corporate restructuring is identical to restructuring in higher education. Gumport and Pusser

(1997) described the major differences between higher education institutions and corporations as the lack of a clear, shared goal, ambiguous missions, hard to define core competencies, challenges in assessing outcomes, multi-level goals and varying authority structures.

The trustee even recanted a conversation with the president where the president attempted to explain the differences in the business and academic environments.

And he and I had a lot of conversations and he would tell me, well, you know, academia is not the same as business. Well, so what I know, and I still believe this to be true, its like if you let people tell you what they think, 100 people have 100 different things.

These talks didn’t seem to change the opinion of the trustee whose ultimate opinion was that engagement of faculty demonstrated a clear message: “There [was] no point of view from leadership.”

Exploring Restructuring Outcomes

The outcomes of the restructuring planning process showcased both the strengths and the challenges FAMU faced as it attempted to solidify its survival during challenging economic

105 times, and simultaneously enhance its legitimacy in a competitive higher education market.

Challenges included the contradiction between the university’s historical mission and its contemporary goals, controversial decision-making and complicated consequences, and concern about the pace of decision-making and the magnitude of the budget cuts. Strengths that emerged included a renewed sense of engagement of faculty and staff and the development of campus- wide synergies. Finally, as this restructuring process is still in motion, the final outcome is one of an institution with an uncertain future as the long-term impacts of the process have yet to be experienced and as the economic environment continues to look bleak.

Mission Impossible?

Engaging faculty in the restructuring process allowed for the sharing of thoughts, opinions and ideas. It also uncovered some interesting challenges the university faced as it attempted to transform and reposition itself for the future. The mission at FAMU, though consistently evolving since its’ founding in 1887, has always included a commitment to providing opportunity and access to higher education for black students. This mission is one that links HBCUs nationwide, and one that has been operationalized at FAMU by offering lower admission standards resulting in higher numbers of profile admits (students that do not meet at least one of the admission standards), in comparison to other State University System institutions, and remediation courses used to assist students in becoming college ready.

However, in an attempt to compete in the contemporary higher education market place, attract the best and brightest faculty and students, and increase institutional prestige, the university set a goal of becoming a Research I institution. A Research I institution, currently known as “doctoral/research intensive university,” is defined by the Carnegie Classification

System as a university engaged in extensive research activity which offers a full range of

106 baccalaureate programs, is committed to graduate education through the doctorate, gives priority to research, awards 50 or more doctoral degrees each year and received $40 million or more annually in federal support.

Research on restructuring describes the challenge with institutional positioning when “the market demand” is unclear and pressures abound including university traditions, various constituencies, and the public (Gumport & Pusser, 1997). While achieving Research I status would undoubtedly position FAMU as a stronger institution within the State University System of Florida, and a leader amongst HBCUs, it also presents serious threats to its historical mission of access. Gaining federal support requires an investment in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) areas. Additionally, federal research funding is concentrated among a few institutions and there are few opportunities for new institutions to gain access to that funding.

According to a member of the president’s staff this also means an investment in STEM faculty and facilities and recruitment of stronger graduate and undergraduate students.

So once again, to whom much is given, much is required. So we are uniquely poised and it would be a shame if we didn't stretch, because if we don’t stretch, then those other universities won't have anything to aspire to at the Master's level, at the Ph.D. even just in small quantities of it. When you look at Barack Obama's, clarion call to all of education, but particularly the clarion call to HBCUs, he says those STEMs areas. Well, the stem areas are not only for undergraduate degrees, but for advanced degrees, as well. And so I think that that has been what we have tried to, to say to the faculty and to the staff and to the students that are coming here.

The university will also need to increase admission standards and decrease the number of profile admits. But, most importantly, the university will have to shed its association with monikers like “The Opportunity University” and taglines like “when everyone else said no,

FAMU said yes!” Doing so is no easy task. Beyond the financial and strategic challenges, there

107 are also cultural challenges. These challenges serve as examples of the challenges institutions face when attempting to become isomorphic with prestigious organizations in their organizational field. The culture of FAMU presents a constraint and challenge in the process of mimicking the admission policies and practices of successful institutions (Powell, 1991). FAMU, though not an open-access institution, has a long-standing tradition of being an access point for higher education for black students in the state of Florida. Generations of black people have seen their family members educated at FAMU and hold tight to the notion that FAMU offers a chance for higher education when no other institution did.

An administrator described the role of the university mission.

And then you have the mission of the university to be the university of opportunity for students who others give up on or don’t give an opportunity to. That's the mission of FAMU and they've done that for over 124 years. And so you have to consider all that when you're looking at, uh, restructuring, because you're going to impact all those areas.

FAMU has been one of the largest brick and mortar producer of undergraduate degrees for black students in the nation for over a decade. Yet, the university struggles with a low graduation rate, which hovers around 40% according to the FAMU Office of Institutional

Research webpage (famu.edu). As Florida began to consider performance base funding, and federal funding continues to move towards STEM fields, the university was in a very awkward position. Sustainability and survival seemed contingent upon pursuing Research I status. But pursuing this goal, while trying to maintain a historic commitment to access seemed to be in conflict, especially in the restructuring process.

108

According to one administrator:

But there’s a tension in the sense that sometimes the research component of what the institution is and what the institution wants to be is inconsistent with other aspects of the mission. So there is a tension in trying to make these potentially disparate kinds of components integrate into one. That, that’s hard to do. Now when you go back to why they don’t quite fit, there is tension probably at the faculty level and some of that might be over here, an elitist kind of attitude, where we’re the researchers and we have to be strongly supported. And the, the group over here, that’s, um, more mission driven in, in its original sense, but without us, we wouldn’t be unique in, um, the, the FAMU that everybody has come to identify with and, and know and understand.

A presidential staff member reiterates the challenge.

And this, this is as prime example of -- kind of [a] dichotomy, right, because on the one hand, you have a huge contingent that's going to hang onto the historic FAMU. We are the, the institution of opportunity. Then you have all the drivers for the state that are driving your budget, which says that, um, okay, if all you choose to educate, and give opportunity, and they're not meeting these criteria, you're not getting the funding for them. And, and honestly, that's a huge challenge, right, because it causes you to question how can you really stay true to who you are in doing so, right. And so, um, I, I think FAM yeah we're definitely in -- right in the mix of that. Um, and I think we're trying to do a good job of -- finding a balance, right.

Finding this balance is a challenge according to a member of the leadership team because it is influenced heavily by outside forces and it affects the very essence of the institutions mission and values.

But how do you find that balance with mission, with your mission and, and your market and some of that has been, again, dictated from outside forces like the new thing in Florida is that we want more STEM graduates. Well, that's great, and we can do that, but we also have a, a, a mission to, you know, help underrepresented minorities get an education. So now, how do I balance my resources, if, if, if you're only going to fund stem, how do I then now turn around and balance my resources for my mission. So that's what I mean, finding a balance between your mission and your market.

While there may be some who suggest completely abandoning the historical access mission, most HBCUs would be unwilling to do that, as enrollment would likely plummet and

109 the backlash from the university community and the larger black community would be incensed.

However, FAMU’s only real option seems to be to reduce their share in the access market.

An administrator expressed the challenges of managing opportunity-based students.

So we’re not saying that we’re not going to admit opportunity-based students, right, but we may not admit as many. We also realized that that means that we have to invest more resources in getting them through quicker. Before, we could afford for them to take a little longer. Well, if they come in now, you know, we push everybody out regardless of if you needed to take some developmental classes or not. We still need to be pushing, you know, graduating you in six years.

According to a member of the leadership team, achieving the graduation rate the state will require for funding and simultaneously continuing to provide access to underprepared students is going to require a major infusion and reallocation of funding into support services for academic success, in an already strained financial context.

So I think that that’s causing us to look at how we reallocate resources in terms of being able to – if we’re going to bring those kinds of students in and have them be successful and meet all the state metrics, that means we have to invest the resources that some of the other majority schools may not have to invest in, because they are actually leaving those things to their, um, you know, community colleges or what have you. Whereas we’ve said, no, we’re going to take them in. So it, it is causing us to look at one, how we reallocate and where we put priorities on our resources.

Resource dependence theory focuses on the role of resources in institutional survival

(Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). As resources decreased for the university, procurement of new resources and maintenance of current resources became essential. While the university economic environment was extremely difficult to control, the university was tasked with altering the flow resources by changing its dependencies. For FAMU, this meant scanning the environment and identifying the most accessible opportunity for additional resources. Over the last several decades the federal government has made significant investments, via federal grants, in the

STEM fields. As state appropriations decline, it is essential for FAMU to access these federal

110 grants. But, in order to access these grants the institution must make a great investment in creating a university that promotes STEM programs, faculty, and students.

Additionally resource dependency suggests that political action is one way that organizations manage their dependencies (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Meznar and Nigh (1995) noted that organizations, such as public colleges and universities, that are highly dependent on the government are more likely to engage in political actions, which include enhanced accountability for increased levels of financial support. Public college and universities are highly dependent on university allocations and the current political and economic environment often linked accountability for student outcomes with resource support. FAMU’s departure from a high enrollment of students needing a great deal of academic support suggests that they understand that in order to acquire resources they are going to have to enhance their student outcomes.

Finally, shifting institutional emphasis to the STEM fields and positioning FAMU for

Research I status was not only a decision to ensure survival, but also a decision to enhance legitimacy. Legitimacy would be obtained via institutional isomorphism. As FAMU became more like other Research I institutions, the university’s chances of survival and prestige would be enhanced. However, in the process, the university mission would be altered.

Reinvestment Gone Wrong

The idea that resources were going to have to be reallocated to enhance student success at

FAMU was clear. From the very onset of the restructuring process, “reinvestment” was considered to be an essential component of restructuring plan. The actual restructuring plan even uses “reinvestment” in its title. The plan outlined the intent for much of the reinvestment to be in the area of student success.

111

A member of the Student Affairs staff discusses the plans for reinvestment.

There are a lot of different areas where the, the reinvestment will take place, not just retention. Uh, we're looking to create an academic success institute at the university. Part of the restructuring plan was you create that umbrella of academic success, so that we can monitor and track students from the recruitment aspect all the way through graduation, and you have people designated to do that so that we can fulfill our strategic plans and the metrics that were set by our board of trustees, as far as increasing the retention, progression and graduation rate. Um, but also, investment into, uh, smaller classes for, uh, specific areas like math, English and sciences, where students tend to have a higher failure rate. You have smaller sections and students get more attention, then you can, um, increase the passage rate of those classes. Also providing support services. Um, there's a new strategy called Enrollment Coach that we want to bring to the university. We want to establish a true summer bridge program, where they'll have mentorship and also mandatory activities, particularly for those students that come in, uh, at a deficit, where they -- they're not adequately prepared for college coming out of high school, having a summer program to help get them transitioned, but also establish those study skills, time management skills and everything they need to be successful in college, uh, we would like to do. And that's where, uh, we'll plan to reinvestment.

While investment in student success seemed like a positive step for the university in its efforts to strengthen the student body of FAMU, everyone was not in agreement about where the reinvestment should be directed, particularly a member of the Board of Trustees.

So now what we did is to cut people, so -- and nobody got any more money, so we didn't reinvest in the talent, which shows like, hey we're going to ask you to work more for the same dollars, and they just sent a bad message, it wasn’t done properly.

Research on prestige and rankings indicates that investments in faculty, students, and research, all of which are interrelated, can increase a schools ranking and prestige (Sims, 1994).

An investment in current students rather than faculty in a time of budget constraints seemed rather odd. After continued questioning I learned that the investment in student success at the university was not quite the strategic positioning decision it was described as. Instead, it was a response to the decline in the academic strength of the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 incoming freshmen classes.

112

According to a member of the Board of Trustees:

We have been investing significantly more in remediation because of the marginal students who were let into the university and so it was a greater expense in order to help remediate and retain the students that were let in in 2009 and 2010.

In 2009, the university president, in an attempt to increase university appropriations, based upon the Full Time Enrolled (FTE) students at the university, set a goal to increase the student body to 13,000 students from 11,500 the previous year, with the ultimate goal of 15,000.

In order to achieve this goal the freshman class needed to expand. This charge led to a freshman class with over 78% of the students labeled as profile admits in 2009 and 63% in 2010 according to a presentation on profile admits (2010). While this decision was strategic, in that it allowed the university to bring in additional funds, it was extremely shortsighted according to one of the participants.

[The President] made a strategic change because he was worried about dollars, he was like, I'm going with 15,000 in enrollment or bust. And what he did, was he opened the floodgates and he allowed a lot of kids who had no business going to FAMU historically, because of their academics.

Inundating a resource poor institution, without an academic infrastructure or funds to support the academic support services that were needed to retain and graduate academically underperforming students was counterproductive. In effect, the university admitted students with severe academic shortcomings and didn’t provide any academic support. The results of this decision included greater challenges with retention, which will undoubtedly lead to lower graduation rates, and greater strain on faculty, who must teach to an overwhelming number of academically underperforming students.

113

One of the participants detailed the challenges with theses students.

We did not have the appropriate remediation skills. So you bring kids who don’t have, whatever math or don’t have the appropriate writing, English skills, to be successful in first year classes, and when you talk to faculty members, they were complaining [that] these kids aren’t ready. So, you know, you can't have kids, you know, who are ready to get into the upper level classes if they don’t have basic skills because they, you know, weren't ready to be accepted. So now you're putting more pressure on faculty, to teach kids who aren’t prepared. So now we have to put in a whole new remediation curriculum, things that we didn't have when this happened, so Bill Hudson who is there now, had to put in all this redundant services, you know, tutoring, which is all good stuff to have, but we had to do it because if we didn't do it, you know, a lot of these kids were not going to make it.

The participant continued with additional details.

So, um, what was happening is we were bringing people in here who were profile admits, and there are some profile admits, they're just like, oh, I didn't take a language, we're saying they were profile admit. But some of them are like I had a bad GPA and bad test scores and maybe I need to be going to Broward Community College for my freshman year to prove, you know, whether I'm ready for a four-year college.

Additionally, there were financial effects from the increase in profile admits. These students often enroll in less than a full load (12 or more hours) of courses each semester, yet occupy housing units priced for full-time students, resulting in losses in housing revenue.

Then from an expense standpoint, we have these kids sign up housing and they're not taking a full load, and the other thing was a lot of these kids couldn't handle a full load, they were only taking nine, 10, 11 hour. So they're doling out the funding, so you have somebody sitting in a housing squad, but only taking nine or 10 hours, so the university generates money based on how many hours they take. If somebody is taking a full load, 15 to 18 hours, they generate more income than somebody who is only taking nine or 10. So it was throwing off the math of the university in a bad way with a calculated goal to try to just raise enrollment, but it wasn’t -- it wasn’t smart.

Denial, Trauma, Complacency, and Action

Though addressing issues related to faculty and student success are challenging in their own right, the actual process of layoffs was quite difficult for the university.

114

According to one administrator:

I, I think that there's, um, a large part of change is managing the, the human side of it. And that's probably the most difficult to do.

It became quite apparent that many staff members never believed their jobs were actually at stake. Reviewing the possibilities of why would lead the common person to assume that staff members were either unaware of the budget challenges or unaware that their jobs were being paid via short-term stimulus funds. However, both written correspondence and various participant statements indicated otherwise. Instead, it seemed widely known that certain staff positions were being paid by stimulus supplements.

But according to another staff member it seemed that no one really believed they would actually lose their jobs.

Um, but I think that one of the things that people did not realize is that we were -- that it was really going to happen. People who were on, um, who got two years notice, who were on stimulus dollars, um, took it and did not -- and did not realize until the end of the two years that they were going to be -- they were going to be gone. Staff members assumed that their jobs would be saved. No one had ever witnessed layoffs at the university. In fact, lay-offs were quite rare in most university settings, except in times of financial strain. But, after witnessing lay-offs at other State University System institutions, particularly Florida State University, which is also located in the same city as

FAMU, it is interesting that FAMU staff didn’t believe their jobs were ending. So, even after a two-year advance notice and indicators in the local and higher education environment, when layoffs occurred, the results were described by an administrator as “traumatic.”

I think the university has historically always tried to preserve jobs, as, as an HBCU I think that, you know, that felt like the right thing to do. So this is probably the first time in its history that it's had to do mass layoffs, and that was really traumatic for the university community to grapple with.

115

Due to the few employment options in Tallahassee, Florida, the city where FAMU is located, most residents worked at one of the city’s three higher education institutions or for the state government. Many members of the faculty and staff worked at FAMU for much of their careers. These personal connections made layoffs more challenging.

Um, but here people really connect on a personal level, um, so it's -- those personal connections are really important and I think that makes change traumatic, even more so when, you know, people you've known and worked with for a long period are let go, that makes it much more traumatic.

Restructuring brought more changes than the loss of coworkers. With reorganizations of schools, eliminations of staff and departments, and the reengineering of administrative process, change was nearly everywhere. While some staff members responded by embracing change, others resisted.

According to an administrator:

You got some people that are excited about innovation and I'm ready for a change and all that. Then you got some that, [are] resistant to change. And we've always done it this way, why can't we… Another administrator made a similar statement.

People, people don’t like change. It's kind of like being in the black church, the seven words that killed the black church [were] "you've always done it this way before.

Yet, another administrator had a similar perspective.

Another big challenge, how are we going to -- of the many of our processes that are embedded in years of this is the way we do it, how are we going to undo that, that thinking, that modus operandi, that way of operating, that but this is the way we do it.

Staff members did not have much time to get adjusted to the changes that were occurring.

According to Gumport and Pusser (1997) as institutions change, administrators are held to higher levels of accountability and take on extended job responsibilities. Administrators at FAMU were feeling pressure politically and financially. It was clear that change was occurring regardless of who agreed.

116

An administrator echoed this sentiment.

But it's just the external forces are not going to allow us to be what I call pretty much status quo. And I say that, uh, even, you know, talking about performance funding, um, that the State of Florida is looking at. I went to a meeting the other day that talked about performance. So there's a lot of work that has to be done to meet these changing, uh, external changes that's going to be thrust upon us that we're going to have to, um, implement and adhere to.

Though there was initial complacency and opposition, after staff members survived layoffs at the university, job security became an ever-present concern.

According to one administrator, the unease surrounding job loss not only got staff members engaged, it encouraged some to improve their work performance.

But I think it's also maybe made people realize that they need to do a really good job, because positions could be cut. So some of the complacency, I think, has diminished.

These initial signs of cooperation were positive indicators that change was being embraced at the staff level of the institution, but administrators understood that enduring changed would require a bit more.

One administrator stated the following:

I mean, and it is totally a new day and it's not -- you cannot continue to do the same thing and, and expect to receive different results.

Another administrators made a similar statement.

I, I, I, you know, it's harder than it seems. And I know change in itself is hard, and if you don’t stay on it 24/7, it slips, because you're changing a culture that's been in place for quite a while. Um, we have to constantly remind ourselves…you know, change is, is -- it's a method -- methodological step that has to happen in order for change to be institutionalized. And so, with us, at least on the administrative side, we have to stick to those steps to make change stick, meaning that, you know, we train people right, we communicate right, we make sure that the infrastructure is set up to be successful. And that's a constant battle, all the time because you have all this resistance.

117

Not Enough Time, Not Enough Cuts

As the participants reflected on the restructuring process, two common themes emerged: there was not enough time and there were not enough cuts. When the restructuring was announced in September of 2010 the plan required for the planning process to conclude before the end of the fiscal year in July. The restructuring team was on the clock, and the plan had to be created and approved in order to ensure the revamped university budget was inline with appropriations from the state. The university was able to get the restructuring plan approved at the April 2011 Board of Trustees Meeting. Planning the restructuring of a university in less than a year leaves very little time for in-depth analysis, negotiation, methodic implementation, or continuous evaluation.

A couple of administrators discussed their desire for more time. One administrator stated:

If we had a little more time, I think we, we may have been able to do, um, a few things a little better. But I mean, we, we were really on a fast track and I still don’t understand why we had to go so fast. But at any rate, um, I think that would have helped us a lot and, um, if I had a wish for the future, is that, um, we were given two to three years to really solidly implement both the strategic plan and the restructuring plan, before we make another course correction, you know.

Another administrator shared the same view.

I wish that we had more time to adequately implement and, and, and just go through this process without being a rush to get it done by June 30th. We essentially had a year to get that done. Um, that was the biggest issue. I just wish we had more time.

Without a great deal of time for planning and implementation there was very little time spent thinking about the university’s fiscal future. The restructuring plan required the university to cut more than $13 million from the budget (excluding the loss of over $8 million in stimulus funds). This task was successfully accomplished, but what was not considered was the plausibility that the state would announce additional budget cuts for the following year. It was

118 not until nearly the end of the restructuring process that university leaders realized they did not cut enough and challenging days were ahead.

One academic administrator summed it up very briefly by saying, “they didn't cut enough, nope, they didn't cut enough…”

Another administrator agreed but provided more detail.

Well, now, um, and I probably shouldn't say this aloud, uh, this is probably one of the -- probably the things that we should have considered, um, but it's very difficult when you get four straight years of, or five straight years of budget cut, how do you cut enough so you can brace for the, uh, next cut. We didn't do that. We really didn't.

The Emergence of Synergy

More and more universities are expected to participate in collaborations to spawn new products, services, and technologies, increase institutional revenues, and stimulate the economy

(Goldstein, Maier, & Luger, 1995; Gumport & Sporn, 1999). Coordinating and implementing the restructuring plan brought about several challenges for the university, but there was at least one positive outcome. In an effort to think creatively, the faculty and staff were given the freedom to think about the university without any boundaries or limitations. An administrator believed this freedom allowed for newfound innovation and synergy across the campus.

And, and signaling to them that it's okay to think differently and to think innovatively, I think that was the piece, if there was a gift that the administration gave to the faculty, I think it was the -- that gift of permission to think differently and -- and not be, um, so constrained by the tradition of we're here to take the underrepresented, underserved.

Faced with the enormous task of academic and administrative restructuring, faculty, staff and administrators participated in conversations across disciplines and began to think of ways to partner to reduce costs, generate funds, and engage in research. Collaboration, discussed in resource dependence theory, is also an example of how an institution can help manage and share

119 dependencies and potentially reduce environmental complexity, gain resources, and to gain power over resource providers (Pfeffer &Nowak, 1976; Provan, et al, 1980).

According to an administrator in Academic Affairs:

This was like un -- uncovering a diamond and you didn't even know it was there. Productive faculty and, and, and, you know, new faculty, were just energized by what we were doing, because they were seeing the synergies and they were seeing the opportunities that they were going to be afforded, you know, with the new arrangements. And so, you know, you have faculty, I mean, we even had faculty come and speak at the Board of Trustees meeting about I'm so excited, I'm, you know, now I'll be able to do some interdisciplinary research with some of my colleagues across these disciplines, where before I was in such a big college, people didn't really understand what I was doing. Now I have an opportunity to be a little more focused, but in areas that make sense for us.

According to another member of the leadership team:

I think there is, um, at the college and school level, I feel that there is, a, um, a new sense of vibrancy, especially for the colleges and schools that were affected by the restructuring. I think that's one of the most healthy discussions is examining synergies. That was the primary purpose of the reorganization. And I think those conversations are starting to happen.

An Uncertain Future

The future of FAMU is greatly connected to future funding. As the institution works to continue to achieve their academic and administrative goals, it must still contend with uncertainty surrounding state appropriations. There had not, even at the time of interviews for this study in December of 2011, been any indication that the continuous budget reductions that began in 2007 were going to cease. However, when asked about preparation and strategy for future reductions administrators had few answers.

According to one administrator:

In terms of further cuts, we think that, um, we have -- we've run out of stimulus, we've run out of -- if we -- we've tightened our belt as much as we could, so we're kind of -- we're almost out of magic, um, as they say.

120

The administrator continued by stating the following:

Um, so in the coming year, which is, uh, I think a $2 billion, right now it's a $2 billion shortfall, um, I don't know what other cut is coming, so now you cut the administration part for the last four years, and so what are you going to have to look at now is how do you still maintain your academic, um, programs and, and quality and integrity and all that stuff in your academics, when you get a cut for another 6 or 7 million dollars.

Another administrator shared thoughts on how additional cuts might be approached.

You know, you can't go to expenses anymore, you won't even get out -- you can't get up to that number. So you're back in the same place again that you were in the last couple of years, which is really a downer, because it, it just takes up all your energy to keep going back through, um, you know, this exercise. And you hope one day that if you don’t cut, well, you know, it's a great day when a CFO says, just don’t cut me, I don’t even want any more money, just don’t cut me. Um, that day hasn’t come yet. So it was like, if you just don’t cut me, we'll maintain, uh, we'll figure out way, but having another cut, um, it'll be devastating. It really will. So I don’t even know what we would do, to be honest, but I know those conversations would have to happen again, as we had in the past. My guess is that we will pick up where we left off, to see if there is any more, um, efficiencies on an administrative side and then, go back into the provost's methodology of how they started looking at, um, I guess high, medium and low programs. And start taking them from the bottom.

This administrator concluded by saying:

We're probably going to have to really decide very succinctly what FAMU is going to look like, you know. And it won't be everything to everybody.

121

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The recession of 2007 forced many higher education institutions across the country to restructure. Institutional endowments decreased due to investments in the downward spiraling stock markets, fundraising decreased as donors lost jobs and saw their investments dwindle, competition for foundation and federal grants increased as more institutions sought grants as an opportunity to raise funds, and federal and state appropriations decreased as employment and taxes dollars declined. Restructuring was often the only answer after institutions employed smaller cost-cutting ideas like reducing printing, transitioning from 5 to 4 day workweeks, and leaving open positions unfilled. Administrative restructuring often takes the form of staff layoffs, process reengineering, and technological upgrades, but in the case of FAMU, both administrative and academic restructuring occurred in tandem. Academic restructuring included the elimination of non-instructional units, the reorganization of colleges and schools, and the elimination of academic programs.

Within my research of the FAMU restructuring process I encountered an institution that initiated a restructuring effort after planned change was already underway. The institutional leaders, having completed a major strategic planning effort, were preparing to engage in an evaluation and reorganization of their schools and colleges and eventually their academic programs. As financial constraints increased and the institutional budget decreased the president,

122 with prompting from FAMU’s Board of Trustees, outlined a plan for both administrative and academic restructuring. Additionally, the university was in a unique situation that seemed to call for the transformation of the academic and administrative units.

This study sought to uncover what prompted and drove change in the academic and administrative restructuring process at FAMU. Several findings emerged that together paint a picture of why and how change occurred at the university. These findings included the factors that influenced the restructuring decision, strengths, weakness, and challenges of the restructuring process, and implications and outcomes of the restructuring planning process.

Within this study I identified the impetus for the restructuring process as two-fold. While the institution was facing severe financial challenges during the economic downturn, the university was also actively engaged in academic transformation. Therefore, the motivation for restructuring was both financial and strategic. The economy, and subsequently the reduction in state appropriations, was the primary external force prompting the administrative restructuring.

The internal force prompting the academic restructuring was the presidential leadership team that was attempting to strategically position the university to gain status as a Research I Carnegie classified institution in an attempt to attract federal funding, stronger faculty, and higher achieving students.

Controversy surrounding the decision making in the restructuring process was present even prior to the beginning of the process, specifically related to the use of the stimulus federal funding. While other higher education institutions in Florida chose to restructure at the beginning of the recession and use federal stimulus funding to enhance and create new programs,

FAMU’s president made the decision to use federal stimulus funding to save staff positions.

Unfortunately, the president received little credit for this decision. Though staff was notified that

123 all positions funded through stimulus dollars would eventually be eliminated, there was little planning by staff members for transitioning out of the university. Many of the eliminated staff did not prepare at all and were both upset with the president and disgruntled with the university at large when positions were ultimately eliminated.

The president’s decision to delay restructuring to 2010 rather than in 2008 or 2009 like other universities in the SUS was also a critical decision that received intense scrutiny and questioning. Multiple participants including a student, administrators and a Board of Trustees member indicated that they felt the restructuring process was initiated too late. They believed that if the leadership team had developed a plan to restructure earlier, there would have been much more time to develop and implement the plan. The delay in restructuring was not attributed to one central cause. However, it can be surmised that the delay may have been an avoidance of the inevitable, layoffs.

A major strength echoed by many of the participants was the efforts of the leadership team to communicate with the range of university constituents. Communication of the restructuring process was provided in various forms including university memos, town hall meetings, a restructuring website, and newsletters. Surveys were disseminated to faculty, staff, students and alumni, and focus groups for the internal constituencies were organized.

Additionally, all of the restructuring documents were made available and easily accessible on the restructuring website. While some participants indicated that communication was not perfect, and faculty had limited opportunities for continuous feedback, most participants indicated it was the greatest strength of the restructuring process.

The influence of peer and aspirational institutions was prevalent, especially in the development of the academic component of the restructuring plan. With the assistance of a

124 consulting firm, the leadership team was able to examine the various organizational structures of colleges and schools at peer and aspirational institutions and use those to propose various organizational models for the university. The influence of these institutions exemplified the university’s desire not only to have a contemporary and relevant structure but also to ensure the structure of the university was in line with institutions that had already achieved the academic status to which FAMU aspired.

The perception of faculty involvement in the restructuring process was varied. While some participants believed faculty were not involved enough, there was at least one participant, the Board of Trustees member, who believe faculty were overly involved. Faculty was involved in the reorganization of colleges and schools and the assessment of academic programs. Some participants considered faculty involvement essential and even felt that faculty should have had more involvement in making the final decisions about program elimination. Conversely, some participants felt the university president should have executed all of the decision-making in the restructuring process.

The impact of restructuring on FAMU’s historical mission of access was not addressed by many participants, but proves to be one of the greatest challenges for the future. As the university and its leaders strive to position FAMU as a top tier academic institution with strong faculty, students, and academic programs, its greatest hurdle is the long-held commitment to providing access to black students. This commitment has included the acceptance of a large number of students who need remediation, academic advisement, who are generally in need of large amounts of financial support. Achieving contemporary goals like Research I status while simultaneously continuing a commitment to accepting students needing high levels of academic and financial support is contradictory and nearly impossible to achieve for an institution with

125 limited resources and declining funding. While a few participants observed this contradiction and expressed their concern during the interview, it was apparent that university leaders were not actively addressing this issue.

From the initial development of the restructuring plan, the concept of “reinvestment” was included. Savings, achieved through the staff reductions and process reengineering, were supposed to be reinvested into a student success center to provide academic support for students.

Everyone was not in agreement with this decision; particularly a Board of Trustees member who believed any additional funds should have been invested in faculty. This Board of Trustee member also felt that the reinvestment in the academic support center was also only covering up the challenges the university was facing with managing the large number of academically underprepared students the president had allowed to enroll in FAMU during the 2009-2011 school years. This decision was largely a financial one as state funding was appropriated based on the number of full-time enrolled students. However, after enrolling a freshmen class with over

70% of students not completely meeting all of the admission requirements, the university committee was struggling, due to lack of resources and personnel, to meet the needs of these students, making an academic support center critical. This academic support center was opened in the 2011-2012 school year.

Participants almost universally identified the most devastating aspect of the restructuring process as the layoffs. If not evident before, the process of staff reduction and its affect highlight the close connection between the campus and the surrounding community. Layoffs were not only felt on campus but in churches and other organizations where university employees participated.

Additionally, the layoffs highlighted the university culture and the impact of change.

After staff was reduced, remaining employees cycled through periods of denial, trauma, and

126 complacency. However, with the ever present reminder of the possibility of additional funding cuts, which could mean additional staff cuts, many employees were motivated to act and become more engaged in their work. This new level of engagement, along with the new academic and administrative structures adopted by the university, encouraged collaboration and fostered synergies throughout the campus.

It is evident in initial reflection on the restructuring process that impact networks, as an evaluation method, were not used to identify impacts of the changes made in the restructuring process. Building impact networks is a method of evaluation that identifies possible impacts and effects of key events on future developments (Morrison, et. al., 1984). Had university administrators considered the possible positive and negative impacts of the restructuring changes, they may have been able to prevent some of the challenges that resulted. Administrators did not sufficiently consider how changes to the university research position might impact the historical mission of access, nor did they consider how an increase in profile admits might strain the university academic support infrastructure.

Ultimately, the implementation of the restructuring process is scheduled to continue through the 2013-2014 school year. As the implementation process continued state funding also continued to decrease and the participants almost universally expressed three reflections: (1) there was not enough time to develop the restructuring plan, (2) there were not enough cuts made, and (3) the future of the university was uncertain in the current climate of extreme financial constraints.

Resource dependence and institutional theory provided the theoretical framework used to examine and analyze the restructuring process. These theories were selected because according to Sherer and Lee (2002, p.102) “resources scarcity drives, and legitimacy enables, institutional

127 change.” This case study confirmed several assertions of both resource dependence theory and institutional theory.

Confirmation of resource dependence theory, as a theoretical lens, included Pfeffer and

Salancik’s (1978) assertion of the importance of maintaining resources in order to enhance the chances for institutional survival. This was essentially the goal of the restructuring process, to better manage institutional dependencies as resources declined. Additionally, there was evidence that FAMU engaged in several practices, identified in resource dependency theory, to assist with resource maintenance including collaboration, political action, and the expertise of board members.

Collaborations, used to provide opportunities to acquire resources and reduce uncertainty and interdependence, were one of the initial outcomes of the restructuring process (Pfeffer &

Salancik, 1978). Synergies began to develop between different schools and departments that could potentially result in cost savings, grant opportunities, and innovation. Additionally, there was an indication that FAMU, an institution highly dependent on financial support from the government, began to consider political action as a response to the threat of continued budget reductions (Meznar & Nigh, 1995). Finally, there were participant accounts of members of the

FAMU Board of Trustees acted as “business experts” in the restructuring process, thought there were times when the business approach to restructuring conflicted with the higher education approach.

Confirmation of institutional theory, as theoretical lens, included evidence of isomorphic behavior used to gain legitimacy and prestige (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). FAMU’s desire to reposition itself as a Research I institution was driven by its desire to gain the legitimacy and status of peer and aspirational institutions. However, the desire to enhance the university’s

128 research standing was also contradictory to the access mission that was reflected in the high enrollment of profile admits. As a member of two organizational fields, research institutions and

HBCUS, FAMU was simultaneously engaging in behaviors to establish and maintain legitimacy in both fields. This resulted in the development of contradictory goals. While HBCUs share the historic mission of access and opportunity for black students, resulting in the enrollment of students that need more academic support, establishing legitimacy as a research institution requires attracting top student and faculty talent. Achieving both of these goals simultaneously is nearly impossible and what occurred was the enactment of an isomorphic script and the presence of a stratified reality. FAMU aspired and even began to engage in the behaviors associated with enhancing research, but the institutions severely constrained resources prevented them from engaging at the level of prestigious research institutions.

It also seemed that the timing of FAMU’s status as a late adopter in the decision to restructure might have been connected to its lack of prestige and legitimacy and the desire to allow organizations with more legitimacy to risk the pushback and negative publicity that was associated with the early adopters of restructuring like the University of Florida (Shurer & Lee,

2002). Also confirmed was the role of cultural constraints that can challenge and inhibit institutionalization. FAMU had to manage the constraints of its culture, which emphasized,

“caring” and “opportunity” as it considered staff layoffs and altering admissions practices and policies.

While both resource dependence theory and institutional theory assisted in the understanding of the restructuring of FAMU, there were aspects of the process that were not fully captured by either theory including more explanation of the role of institutional culture and the political environment in the change process. Institutional culture can be a major challenge for

129 institutionalization and understanding how institutions, specifically distinct institutions, can fully engage in a change process while respecting the culture is important. Additionally, the connection between the political environment and the economic environment has become increasingly stronger and understanding the role of the political environment is also important.

Implications

There is much to be gained from this case study of the restructuring process at FAMU.

The single-case study research design, while limited in its generalizability, offered a unique opportunity to examine a restructuring process from the planning and development stage through the beginning of the implementation stage. Below are five implications for institutional leaders to consider before engaging in restructuring or other change processes.

Be Forward Thinking

Institutional change can often be challenging. This is only further complicated when there are time constraints for developing change strategies, communication plans, and implementation plans. Very often institutions engage in strategic planning and academic and administrative organization reviews in 5 to 10 year periods. This may no longer be a possibility. As the nation enters an age of innovation that is fueled by technological advancements, higher education institutions must be responsive and adaptive. It is essential that administrative and academic structures be evaluated annually so trends can be identified, strategies can be crafted, and synergies can be explored. Institutional leaders must constantly be forward thinking and ensure they are monitoring the progress and trajectory of their respective institutions.

130

Keep your Mission in Mind

The institutional mission should be a central component of any change effort. It should not simply be a statement that contains buzzwords. The mission of the institution, especially in the case of distinctive colleges and universities like Minority Serving Institutions, religious institutions, and single-sex institutions, is often the very essence of what makes a college or university unique in the higher education marketplace. As change occurs, and as isomorphism results in institutions becoming more similar in an effort to obtain legitimacy, it is essential that the institutional mission remain an integral part of the change process or distinctiveness may be lost (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). This is not to suggest that institutions cannot evolve, but rather to ensure that as institutions evolve they do not inadvertently create conflicting or contradictory goals, tarnish the institutional brand, or jeopardize the institutions position in the marketplace.

Communication is the Key

A comprehensive communication strategy is essential in successfully implementing change. A strategy for the communication of the entire change process should be developed in tandem with the actual change plan. It is important, particularly for institutions like colleges and universities that are important parts of states, communities, and individual families, that constituents be made aware of proposed and planned change. Executing a communication plan provides opportunity not only to engage various publics, but also to present a college or university and its leaders as transparent and interested in constituency feedback. Additionally, it provides a channel for consistent messaging and the sharing of ideas that may contribute to the development or execution of the change process.

131

Engage Faculty

As calls for accountability have increased over the last few decades, universities have responded by shifting more towards corporate and industry processes (Gumport, 2000). This has resulted in faculty having a reduced role in the decision making process while the administrative role has increased. According to Rhoades (1998) faculty are now referred to as “managed professionals” and administrators as “managerial professionals.” However, faculty members are critical to institutional survival and success. It is essential that they be an integral part of all institutional change processes, particularly if changes impact the academic units of the university.

Faculty can be extremely helpful in a change process, if they are properly engaged. This entails including enough time in the planning stages not only to communicate the planned change but also to offer opportunities for faculty to contribute to the planning. Faculty must be represented on all relevant committees and must all feel that their voice is respected. Engaging faculty will not only garner more buy-in in the change process, but it will garner more trust from faculty for administrators and may even result in enhanced institutional loyalty and involvement and better decision-making.

Think about the Worse Case Scenario

In planning a change process there are often many unknown variables. While institutional data from prior and even current years is available, the future is often unknown. In the case of a restructuring process institutional leaders are often presented with financial data for the current and previous years. This is extremely helpful when assessing the current state of an institution.

Though projections and assumptions can be made about what the future holds, it still remains widely unknown. This can present a monumental hurdle when decisions about department and

132 program elimination and staff reduction must be made. It is important for institutional leaders to build impact networks and brainstorm both best and worst-case scenarios that their respective institutions could face when planning a change effort (Morrison, et. al., 1984). Though the worst case may never happen, being prepared for such an event and the various possible orders of impact could make the difference between the long-term success or failure of a change process.

This case study on the FAMU restructuring process has allowed an exploration of both the process and the outcomes associated with planning for organizational change. Reflections from university constituents provided a variety of perspectives on various aspect of the process and helped in the analysis of the outcomes. Additionally, resource dependence and institutional theory provided two connected lenses with which we were able to examine both the process and the outcomes of restructuring at FAMU.

Future Studies

It is important to note that this research study represents a snapshot in time of the restructuring process at Florida A&M University. Though the planned restructuring effort was scheduled to last over 3 years, this study highlights a 7-month period beginning in September

2010 when the restructuring process was launched and ending in April 2011 when the FAMU

Board of Trustees approved the final restructuring plan. Ideally this study would have extended until the conclusion of the restructuring process, and without time constraints I may have examined the restructuring process through the lens of the governing board, alumni, and other external constituents.

Future studies on restructuring may consider a multi-case approach, which would allow for the examination of restructuring across institutions and provide the opportunity to compare

133 and contrast various aspects of the restructuring process. Additional studies may also explore a single organizational field and include the peer and aspirational institutions of an institution undergoing restructuring. Other studies may focus on the role of faculty governance in an institutional change process and examine the faculty influence and power in institutional decision-making. Finally, future studies may also examine the future impact of a restructuring process by developing a case study that focuses on 3-5 years after the implementation of the restructuring plan.

134

REFERENCES

Abelman, R., & Dalessandro, A. (2009). The institutional vision of historically Black

colleges and universities. Journal of Black Studies, 40(2), 105-134.

Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1996). Restructuring education support services and

integrating community resources: Beyond the full service school model. School

Psychology Review, 25, 431-445.

Additional restructuring guidelines. (n.d.)

Altbach, P. G. (1994). Higher education in American society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O. & Gumport, P.J. (Eds.). (2005). American higher education in the

Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges. 2nd edition.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O. & Gumport, P.J. (Eds.). (2011). American higher education in the

Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges. 3nd edition.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Assessment of alternative academic structures for Florida A&M University. (n.d.).

Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of blacks in the south, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina Press.

Baldridge, J.V., Curtis, D.V., Ecker, G. & Riley, C.L. (1978). Policymaking and effective

leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

135

Barringer, B.R. & Harrison, J.S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through

interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26, 367-403.

Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework.

Higher Education, 45(1), 43-70.

Berdahl, R. (1990). Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in British universities.

Studies in Higher Education, 15(2), 169-180.

Brewer, D., Gates, S. M., & Goldman, C. A. (2002). Pursuit of prestige: Strategy and

competition in us higher education. Rutgers: Transaction Publishers.

Brown, M., Ricard, R. B., Donahoo, S., Brown, M., & Freeman, K. (2004). The changing

role of historically black colleges and universities: Vistas on dual missions,

desegregation, and diversity. Black colleges: New perspectives on policy and

practice, 3-28.

Brown, M. C. (2002). Good intentions: Collegiate desegregation and transdemographic

enrollments. The Review of Higher Education, 25(3), 263-280.

Burke, J.C. (2002). Funding public colleges and universities for performance.

New York: Rockefeller Institute Press.

Burnes, B. (1996). No such thing as… a “one best way” to manage organizational change.

Management Decision, 34(10), 11-18.

Cameron, K. S., & Tschirhart, M. (1992). Postindustrial environments and organizational

effectiveness in colleges and universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 87-108.

Cameron, K. S., & Whetten, D. (1996). Organizational effectiveness and quality: The second

generation. In S. John (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol.

11, 265-306). New York: Agathon Press.

136

Cameron, K. S., Whetten, D. A., & Kim, M. U. (1987). Organizational dysfunctions of decline.

The Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 126-138.

Clarke, M. (2007). The impact of higher education rankings on student access, choice, and

opportunity. Higher Education in Europe, 32(1), 59-70.

Coaxum, J. (2001). The misalignment between the Carnegie classifications and Black

colleges. Urban Education, 36(5), 572-584.

Colavecchio-Van Sickler, S. (2007, December 11). FAMU faces big test today. Tampa Bay

Times.

Conner, T.W. and Rabovsky, T.M. (2011). Accountability, affordability, access: A review of the

recent trends in higher education policy research. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 93-

112.

Conrad, C. F., Brier, E. M., & Braxton, J. M. (1997). Factors contributing to the matriculation

of white students in public HBCUs. Journal for a Just and Caring Education,3(1),37-62.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Crist will support university student fee increase. (2007, June 27). Palm Beach Daily Post.

Curri, G. (2002). Reality versus perception: Restructuring tertiary education and institutional

organisational change–a case study. Higher Education, 44(1),133-151.

137

Dacin, M.T., Goodstein, J. & Scott, W.R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change:

Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45-

57.

Deephouse, D.L. (1996). Does isomorphism legitimate? The Academy of Management Journal,

39(4), 1024-2039.

Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass

communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6),1091-1112.

Dill, D. D., & Sporn, B. (1995). Emerging patterns of social demand and university reform:

Through a glass darkly. Westport, CT: Praeger.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism

and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 147-160.

El-Khawas, E. (1994). Restructuring initiatives in public higher education: Institutional

response to financial constraints. Research Briefs, 5, 10.

Enrollment by Gender. (n.d.).

Excellence in a new era: Developing the millennial FAMUan. (2011, April 6).

Facts and rankings [webpage]. (2012).

Florida A&M University 2010-2011 fact book: Revenues and expenditures. (n.d.).

Florida A&M University board of trustees restructuring presentation [powerpoint]. (2010,

December 1).

Florida A&M University peer institutions and aspirational institutions [web document]. (n.d.).

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University strategic plan 2010-2020. (n.d.).

Florida’s Medical Entomology Laboratory [webpage]. (n.d.). Florida’s future is at stake: The

status of the Florida mosquito control research program.

138

Florida tuition among lowest in U.S. (2010, June 18). Orlando Sentinel.

Freeman, K. (2004). Black colleges: New perspectives on policy and practice (Vol. 3).

Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Garibaldi, A. M. (1984). Black colleges and universities: Challenges for the future.

Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Gary, H., & Prahalad, C. K. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard

Business Review, 68(3), 79-91.

Gasman, M. (2007). Envisioning black colleges: A history of the united Negro college fund.

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Gasman, M. (2009). Historically Black colleges and universities in challenging economic

times. The Teachers College Record.

Gasman, M., Baez, B., Drezner, N. D., Sedgwick, K. V., Tudico, C., & Schmid, J. M. (2007).

Historically Black colleges and universities: Recent trends. Academe, 93(1), 69-77.

Gasman, M., Baez, B., & Turner, C. S. V. (2008). Understanding minority-serving

institutions. New York: State University of New York Press.

Gasman, M., Lundy-Wagner, V., Ransom, T., & Bowman III, N. (2010). Special issue:

Unearthing promise and potential--our nation. ASHE Higher Education Report,35(5),

134.

Goldstein, H., Maier, G., & Luger, M. (1995). The university as an instrument for economic and

business development: US and European comparisons. Emerging patterns of social

demand and university reform: Through a glass darkly, 105-133.

139

Green, K. C., & Gilbert, S. W. (1995). Great expectations: Content, communications,

productivity, and the role of information technology in higher education. Change: The

magazine of higher learning, 27(2), 8-18.

Guiding principles. (n.d.).

Gumport, P. J. (1993). The contested terrain of academic program reduction. Journal of Higher

Education, 283-311.

Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional

imperatives. Higher Education, 39(1), 67-91.

Gumport, P. J., Chun, M., (1999). Technology and higher education: Opportunities and

challenges for the new era: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement,

Stanford University.

Gumport, P. J., & Pusser, B. (1996). Academic restructuring: Contemporary adaptation in

higher education. Planning strategies for the new millennium. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Gumport, P. J., & Pusser, B. (1997). Restructuring the academic environment. Planning and

management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary

institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guskin, A. E. (1994). Reducing student costs & enhancing student learning part II:

Restructuring the role of faculty. Change, 26(5), 16-25.

Guskin, A. E. (1996). Facing the future: The change process in restructuring universities.

Change: The magazine of higher learning, 28(4), 27-37.

Harley, D. (2001). Desegregation at HBCUs: Removing barriers and implementing

strategies. Negro Educational Review, 52(4), 151-164.

140

Harrison, J.R., Torres, D.L., & Kukalis, S. (1988). The changing of the guard: Turnover and

structural change in the top-management positions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33,

211-232.

Hearn, J. C. (2003). Diversifying campus revenue streams: Opportunities and risks. Washington,

DC: American Council on Education Center for Policy Analysis.

Hearn J.C. (2008). Higher education new economics: The risks and rewards of emerging

operational reforms. Washington, DC: American Council on Education Center for Policy

Analysis.

Heller, D. E. (2009). The context of higher education reform in the United States. Higher

Education Management and Policy, 21(2), 71-88.

Hillman, A.J., Cannela, A.A., & Paetzold, R. L. (2000). The resource dependence role of

corporate directors: Strategic adaption of board composition in the response to

environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 235-255.

Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review.

Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404-1427.

Hovey, H. A. (1999). State spending for higher education in the next decade: The battle to

sustain current support. Washington, DC: National Center for Public Policy and

Higher Education

Hughes-Harris, C. (2010, December 17). Provost restructuring letter. Retrieved from

Ikenberry, S. O. (1971). Restructuring college and university organization and governance: An

introduction. The Journal of Higher Education, 421-429.

Investing in the future of FAMU: FAMU restructuring plan for 2011-2014 (background). (2010,

November 24).

141

Jewell, J. O., & Allen, W. R. (2002). A backward glance forward: Past, present and future

perspectives on historically Black colleges and universities. The Review of Higher

Education, 25(3), 241-261.

Kerr, C. (1994). Expanding access and changing missions: The federal role in us higher

education. Educational Record, 75(4), 27-31.

Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century.

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 147.

Kezar, A, (2009). Change in higher education: Not enough, or too much? Change,1-7.

Kiley, K. (2012, January 31). Not out of the woods yet. Inside Higher Ed.

Kujovich, G. (1994). Public Black colleges: The long history of unequal funding. The Journal

of Blacks in Higher Education, 2, pp.73-62.

Lederman, D. (2009, February 13). The final stimulus bill. Inside Higher Ed.

Lederman, D. (2011, January 27). Back to (semi-) normal. Inside Higher Ed.

Machung, A. (1998). Playing the ranking game. Change: The magazine of higher learning,

30(4), 12-16.

Martins, L. L. (2005). A model of the effects of reputational rankings on organizational

change. Organization Science, 701-720.

Matthews, C.M. (2008). Federal research and development funding at Historically Black

Colleges and Universities. CRS Report for Congress.

Matthews, J.B. & Norgaard, R. (1984). Managing the partnership between higher education and

industry. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

142

Meredith, M. (2004). Why do universities compete in the ratings game? An empirical analysis

of the effects of the US news and world report college rankings. Research in Higher

Education, 45(5), 443-461.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

Revised and expanded from "case study research in education." San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Meyer, H. D., & Rowan, B. (2006). Institutional analysis and the study of education. The new

institutionalism in education, 1-13.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth

and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 340-363.

Meznar, M.B. & Nigh, D. (1995). Buffer or bridge? Environmental and organization

determinants of public affairs activities in American firms. Academy of Management

Journal, 38, 975-996.

Michael, S. O. (1998). Restructuring us higher education: Analyzing models for academic

program review and discontinuation. The Review of Higher Education, 21(4), 377-404.

Minor, J. (2008). Contemporary HBCUs: Considering institutional capacity and state

priorities. A research report. Michigan State University, College of Education, East

Lansing, MI.

Monks, J., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (1999). The impact of us news and world report college

rankings on admission outcomes and pricing decisions at selective private institutions.

NBER Working Paper, 7227.

Morphew, C. C. (2000). The realities of strategic planning: Program termination at East Central

University. The Review of Higher Education, 23(3), 257-280.

143

Morphew, C. C., & Baker, B. D. (2004). The cost of prestige: Do new research I universities

incur higher administrative costs? Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 20.

Morrison, J.L., Renfro, W.L., & Boucher, W.I. (1984). Futures research and the strategic

planning process. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Reports.

Myers, R. S. (1996). Restructuring to sustain excellence. New directions for higher

education, 1996(94), 69-82.

National Association of College and University Business Officers-Commonfund Institute (2011).

U.S. and Canadian Institutions Listed by Fiscal Y ear 2010 Endowment Market Value and

Percentage Change* in Endowment Market Value from FY 2009 to FY 2010.

National Science Foundation Division of Science Resources Statistics (2007). Survey of federal

science and engineering support to universities, colleges and nonprofit institutions.

National Science Foundation (2009). Federal S&E obligations to three types of minority serving

institutions.

Nelms, C. (2010). Strengthening black colleges and universities: A call to action.

Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: integration and future

directions. Academy of Management Review, 15, 241-265;

O’Meara, K. A. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the pursuit of prestige. Higher

education: Handbook of theory and research, 121-179.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publishing.

Peterson, M. W., & Dill, D. D. (1997). Understanding the competitive environment of the

postsecondary knowledge industry. Planning and management for a changing

environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions, 3-29.

144

Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and composition of corporate boards of directors. Administrative Science

Quarterly,17, 218-229.

Pfeffer, J. (1976). Beyond management and the worker: the institutional function of

management. Academy of Management Review, 1, 36-46.

Pfeffer J. & Nowak, P. (1976). Joint ventures and interorganizational interdependence.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 398-418.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource

dependence perspective. Stanford Business Books.

Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory.

Handbook of organizational institutionalism, 276–298.

Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational

analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard

Business Review, 68(3), 79-91.

Programs terminated or suspended by BOT April 7, 2011 [web document]. (2011, September

5).

Provan, K.G., Beyer, J.M., & Kruytbosch, C. (1980). Environmental linkages and power in

resource dependence relations between organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,

25, 200-225.

Pusser, B., Slaughter, S., Thomas, S. (2006). Playing the board game: An empirical study of

university trustee and corporate board interlocks. The Journal of Higher Education,

77(5),747-775.

145

Rajagopalan, N., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). Toward a theory of strategic change: A multi-lens

perspective and integrative framework. Academy of management review, 48-79.

Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed professionals: Unionized faculty and restructuring academic

labor. New York: State University of New York Press.

Rich, D. (2006). Academic leadership and the restructuring of higher education. New

directions for higher education, 2006(134), 37-48.

Rindova, V. P., & Fombrun, C. J. (1999). Constructing competitive advantage: The role of

firm–constituent interactions. Strategic management journal, 20(8), 691-710.

Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being

known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences

of organizational reputation. The Academy of Management Journal, 1033-1049.

Rowley, G. (1997). Mergers in higher education: a strategic analysis. Higher Education

Quarterly,51(3), 251-263.

Sav, G. T. (1997). Separate and unequal: State financing of historically Black colleges and

universities. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (15), 101-104.

Sav, G. T. (2010). Funding historically Black colleges and universities: Progress toward

equality. Journal of Higher Education Finance, 35(3), 295-307.

Scott rejects proposed tuition hike. (2012, January 12). Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/content/scott-rejects-proposed-tuition-hike

Sherer, P.D. & Lee, K. (2002). Institutional change in large law firms: a resource dependency

and institutional theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 102-119.

Sims, S. J. (1994). Diversifying historically Black colleges and universities: A new higher

education paradigm. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

146

Slaughter, S. (1994). Academic freedom at the end of the century. In P. G. Altbach, R.

Berdahl & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), Higher education in American society (Third Ed.).

Amherst: Prometheus Books.

Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L. (2001). Expanding and elaborating the concept of academic capitalism.

Organizations, 8, 154-161.

Sporn, B. (1999). Institutional adaptation: Demands for management reform and university

administration. New York: Springer.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.

State University System of Florida Board of Governors (n.d.). New Florida initiative: State

university system of Florida [webpage].

State University System of Florida Board of Governors: Strategic Plan 2012-2025. (2011,

November 10).

Stefkovich, J. A. & Leas, T. (1994). A legal history of desegregation in higher education.

The Journal of Negro Education, 63(3), 406-420.

Stripling, J. (2009, September 11). Hard Science. Inside Higher Ed.

Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. The

Journal of Higher Education, 2-21.

Tierney, W. G. (1998). The responsive university: Restructuring for high performance:

Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Tolbert, P. S. (1985). Institutional environments and resource dependence: Sources of

administrative structure in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 1-13.

147

Travis, S. (2010, December 12). Federal stimulus money helped colleges avoid deep cuts. Sun

Sentinel.

Ulrich, D. & Barney, J.B. (1984). Perspectives in organizations: Resource dependence,

efficiency, and population. Academy of Management Review, 9, 471-481.

U.S. News and World Report (2012). Florida A&M University.

U.S. News and World Report (2012). University of Florida.

Wellman, J.V., Desrochers, D.M. & Lenihan, C.M. (2008). The growing imbalance: recent

trends in U.S. postsecondary education finance. Delta Project on Postsecondary

Education: Costs, Productivity, and Accountability.

White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (2012).

Williams, G. (1995). The “marketization” of higher education: Reforms and potential

reforms in higher education finance. Emerging patterns of social demand and

university reform: Through a glass darkly, 170-193.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publishing.

Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (1990). Cost containment: Committing to a new economic reality.

Change: The magazine of higher learning, 22(6), 16-22.

Zucker, L. G. (1988). Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment:

Pensacola, FL: Ballinger Publishing.

148

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

FAMU DOCUMENTS

Document Name Document Type Location FAMU President’s Report 2009-2010 Annual Report www.famu.edu FAMU President’s Report 2010-2011 Annual Report www.famu.edu FAMU Strategic Plan 2004-2014 Strategic Plan www.famu.edu FAMU Strategic Plan 2010-2020 Strategic Plan www.famu.edu The Source: Volumes 1-3 Newsletter www.famu.edu State of the University Addresses 2007-2011 Speech Transcripts www.famu.edu Board of Trustee Meeting Minutes 2008-2011 Meeting Minutes www.famu.edu Board of Governors New Florida Overview www.flbog.org State University System of Florida Board of Strategic Plan www.flborg.org Governors Strategic Plan 2010-2025 Restructuring Plan 2011-2014 (Background)- Memo www.famu.edu 11.24.10 United Faculty of Florida January 2011 Faculty Newsletter www.uff-famu.org Newsletter Provost Restructuring Letter Letter www.famu.edu Report of the Reorganizational Task Force Report www.famu.edu Methodology and Process Restructuring Report: Board of Trustees Power Point www.famu.edu Meeting

149

APPENDIX B

FAMU LEADERSHIP LIST

Below you find a list of FAMU administrators, trustee members, dean, and students that were employed at FAMU between the time when restructuring was announced in September of 2010 and when the restructuring plan was approved on April of 2011. Fourteen of these individuals participated in this research study.

Name Position Dr. James Ammons President Rosalyn Fuse-Hall Chief of Staff Dr. Cynthia Hughes Harris Provost/VP of Academic Affairs Dr. William Hudson VP of Student Affairs Teresa Hardee VP of Administrative and Financial Services Avery D. McKnight General Counsel Sharon Saunders Chief Communications Officer Tola Thompson Director of Government Relations Gita Pitter AVP of Institutional Effectiveness Henry Kirby Dean of Student Life Dr. Chanta Haywood Dean of School of Graduate Studies Dr. Rodner Wright Dean of School of Architecture Dr. Barbara Mosley Dean of School Allied Health Dr. Leroy Pernell Dean of College of Law Dr. James Hawkins Dean of School of Journalism & Graphic Communication Dr. Ralph Turner Dean of College of Arts and Sciences Dr. Shawnta Friday-Stroud Dean of Business and Industry Torey Alton Board of Trustees Member Richard Dent Board of Trustees Member C. William Jennings Board of Trustees Member Maurice Holder Board of Trustees Member Marjorie Turnbull Board of Trustees Member Solomon Badger Board of Trustees Member Charles Langston Board of Trustees Member Gallop Franklin SGA President Breyon Love SGA Vice President Kashif Smiley SGA Chief Justice

150

APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW REQUEST

Topic: Understanding Institutional Transformation: The Restructuring of Florida A&M University

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore structural change at an institution of higher education. This study will investigate the impetus for, and implications of, structural change and other transformations at Florida A&M University.

Research Questions: This paper seeks to answer the larger question, “Why do institutions change (restructure)?” In doing so I ask the following additional questions:

• What internal and external pressures led to the restructuring decision? • What impact do these internal and external pressures have on decision making in the restructuring process? • What are the (potential) implications of restructuring on the institutional culture, specifically, the mission, traditions, and values? • What are the lessons for other institutions, specifically Historically, Black Colleges and Universities considering institutional changes via a restructuring process?

Requested Interviews: • President • Provost • Board of Trustee Members • VP of Administrative and Financial Services • Chief Communications Officer • Director of Governmental Relations • Former Deans: Graduate School/General Studies • Director of Admissions • VP of Alumni Affairs • VP of Student Affairs • Members of the Reorganizational Task Group • Department Chairs/Faculty Members (those involved in restructuring)

Contact Information: Major Professor: Yarbrah T. Peeples Dr. Libby V. Morris Doctoral Candidate Director, Institute of Higher Education Institute of Higher Education Professor of Higher Education University of Georgia University of Georgia [email protected] (706) 542-3464 [email protected]

151

APPENDIX D

CONSENT FORM

I, ______, agree to participate in a research study titled “Understanding Institutional Transformation: The Restructuring of Florida A&M University” conducted by Yarbrah T. Peeples from the Institute of Higher Education at the University of Georgia (850-264-8707) under the direction of Dr. Libby V. Morris, Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia (706-542-3464). I understand that my participation is voluntary. I can refuse to participate or stop taking part at anytime without giving any reason, and without penalty or loss of benefits to which I am otherwise entitled. I can ask to have all of the information about me returned to me, removed from the research records, or destroyed.

The purpose of this study is to explore structural change at an institution of higher education. This study will investigate the impetus for and implications of structural change and other transformations at Florida A&M University

I will not benefit directly from this research.

If I volunteer to take part in this study, I will be asked to do the following things: 1. Answer questions about the restructuring process at Florida A&M University. Interviews will last between 60-120 minutes and will be audiotaped.

No discomforts or stresses are expected.

No risk is expected.

The only people who will know that I am a research subject are members of the research team. No individually-identifiable information about me, or provided by me during the research, will be shared with others, except if necessary to protect my rights or welfare (for example, if I am injured and need emergency care); or if required by law.

The audiotapes will be kept until the interviews have been transcribed and then destroyed. Until the tapes are destroyed they will only be accessibly by members of the research team.

The investigator will answer any further questions about the research, now or during the course of the project, and can be reached at 850-264-8707.

I understand the procedures described above. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.

______Telephone: 850-264-8707 Signature Date Email: [email protected]

______Name of Participant Signature Date Please sign both copies, keep one and return one to the researcher

Additional questions or problems regarding your rights as a research participant should be addressed to The Chairperson, Institutional Review Board, University of Georgia, 612 Boyd Graduate Studies Research Center, Athens, Georgia 30602-7411; Telephone (706) 542-3199; E-Mail Address [email protected]

152

APPENDIX E

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. Why did the university decide to pursue academic restructuring? a. What led to this restructuring decision? b. Was the decision to restructure purely financial or were there other factors? c. What were the goals in the restructuring process? d. What problems do the academic restructuring process address?

2. Who are the key players in the process? a. What was the role of: i. Board of Trustees ii. President iii. Executive Leadership iv. Faculty v. Students vi. Alumni

3. What do you see as the key changes in the restructuring process? a. Were there other changes that occurred during the academic restructuring process? b. How do you think these changes affected the restructuring process?

4. Was a public relations plan or strategy used to communicate with constituents? a. How was information about the restructuring process communicated internally to: i. Faculty ii. Students iii. Alumni

5. How did the restructuring plan fit into your governance process? a. How were decisions made? b. How were faculty and students included in this process?

6. What are your thoughts on the outcomes associated with the restructuring process? a. Do you think undergoing restructuring has/will effect: i. University Culture ii. University Mission iii. Faculty Involvement

7. Are there things that you would do differently? The same?

8. Is there anything I did not ask you that you think should be discussed?