JOINING FORCES: THE CASE OF ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

by Heather Leslie

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Business Administration

from Alliant School of Management

Alliant International University May 2013

JOINING FORCES: THE CASE OF ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of School of Management In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Alliant International University 2013 by Heather Leslie

Dissertation Committee Approval _______________________________ Date____________________________ Dr. Ali Abu-Rahma, DBA Chairperson

_______________________________ Dr. Daniel Kipley, DBA

_______________________________ Dr. Gregory Lorton, DBA

________________________ Lee White, DBA, CPA Interim Dean

ii

ABSTRACT Mergers and acquisitions are a prevalent force in higher education as more colleges and universities are joining forces to expand resources, enhance missions, or prevent closures. This study examines the merger of Alliant University (formerly California School of Professional Psychology) with United States International University to create what is now Alliant International University. Interviews were conducted with university officials and decision makers who played a major role in the merger, such as presidents, administrators, board members, faculty members, and some students, to get an overall view of the merger as experienced by several university stakeholders. Data also were collected in the form of documents, reports, and archives so that the findings could be triangulated. Findings indicated that, although the merger deal appeared good on paper, it was not executed as well as it could have been, and the aftermath was quite catastrophic, almost causing the life of the institution. The systems were not integrated properly, which resulted in the universitys overspending significantly, almost to the brink of disaster. Recommendations are given to avoid the pitfalls of merger in areas such as integration, planning, culture, identity, leadership, and management. Although the findings of this study are limited to the case of one institution that underwent a merger, other institutions that are merging or are considering a merger can look to this study and learn from it as an illustrative example.

iii

DEDICATION To those who believed and continue to believe in our University.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to the people who have helped and supported me throughout my dissertation process. My committee (aka The Dream Team), Dr. Dan Kipley and Dr. Greg Lorton, gave me extraordinary advice and recommendations and were always there when I needed them. I also was lucky to have the most amazing Chair, Dr. Ali Abu-Rahma, who has been an incredible teacher, mentor, and friend, and has given me immense guidance and support throughout my years as a student. Thank you, my dear Chair. This dissertation would not have been possible without the input of the incredible interviewees and participants who contributed greatly to the study. Lastly, I am so grateful to have the most amazing family, friends, boyfriend, and dog, who provided me with the solid foundation of love and support that got me through the tough times to push onward. I could not have done this without them. Much love to you all!

TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................v CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1 Background of the Study ................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................4 Reason for the Study .......................................................................................................5 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................8 Scope of the Study ..........................................................................................................9 Limitations of the Study................................................................................................10 Research Methodology .................................................................................................10 Qualitative Phenomenological Case Study ...............................................................10 Longitudinal Case Studies ........................................................................................12 Field Site Research ...................................................................................................12 Documents and Records ...........................................................................................13 Interviews ..................................................................................................................14 Open-ended Questionnaires ......................................................................................14 Ethnography: Personal Experience ...........................................................................14 Higher Education as a Business ................................................................................15 Knowledge is Power .................................................................................................18 Environment ..............................................................................................................22 Perception of the Environment .................................................................................23

vi

Institutional Culture and Identity ..............................................................................23 Leadership Style........................................................................................................25 Performance ..............................................................................................................26 Research Model ............................................................................................................27 Research Questions .......................................................................................................28 Pre-merger: Background Information .......................................................................29 Strategic Leader Types .............................................................................................51 Summary .......................................................................................................................54 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................56 Mergers and Acquisitions Overview ............................................................................56 For-profit Mergers and Acquisitions ............................................................................57 Forces of Change ......................................................................................................59 Organization-specific Forces ....................................................................................60 Risk Reduction (or Risk Sharing) and Product/Service Diversification ...................60 Competitive Reaction................................................................................................61 Underutilized and Undervalued Assets .....................................................................61 A Search for Synergy ................................................................................................61 Legal and Tax Benefits .............................................................................................62 Access to New Technologies, Processes, Resources, or New Business Segments .............................................................................................................62 Ego: Emotional and Psychological Reasons .............................................................62 Integration Planning ..................................................................................................64 Success is Fit .............................................................................................................65

vii

The Merger Syndrome ..............................................................................................67 Clash of Cultures.......................................................................................................68 Managing Mergers and Acquisitions ........................................................................69 Summary ...................................................................................................................70 Non-profit Mergers and Acquisitions ...........................................................................71 Reasons for Merging .................................................................................................71 Merger Phases ...........................................................................................................74 Implementation Time Frame.....................................................................................75 Cost of Mergers.........................................................................................................76 Structure ....................................................................................................................76 Successful Non-profit Merger Steps .........................................................................76 Critical Success Factors ............................................................................................78 Summary ...................................................................................................................80 Higher Education Mergers and Acquisitions ................................................................81 Definition of Higher Education Mergers ..................................................................82 Types of Mergers ......................................................................................................83 Beginnings of a Merger: A Response to Growth and Change ..................................84 Historical Patterns of Merger Activity......................................................................85 Forms of Institutional Merger ...................................................................................85 Recent Trend Toward Mergers .................................................................................86 Mergers in the Public Sector .....................................................................................87 Significant Mergers in the U.S. Private Sector .........................................................88 The International Merger Context ............................................................................90

viii

Finances ....................................................................................................................92 College and University Closures ..............................................................................93 Financially Stressed Colleges and Universities ........................................................93 The Dynamics of Size and Specialization ................................................................95 The Mutual-growth Model ........................................................................................96 Advantages and Disadvantages of Mergers ..............................................................96 Consequences and Outcomes of Mergers .................................................................97 The Future of Mergers in Higher Education .............................................................98 Merger as a Response to External Environmental Turbulence .................................99 Change Theory ............................................................................................................100 Change in the Context of Mergers ..........................................................................101 Implementing Change .............................................................................................103 Speed of Change .....................................................................................................103 Resistance to Change ..............................................................................................104 Levels of Change ....................................................................................................107 The Change Process ................................................................................................107 Change Agents ........................................................................................................108 Other Key individuals and Groups in the Change Process .....................................109 Overcoming Resistance ..........................................................................................109 Consensus Change in a Shared-governance Environment......................................110 Ingredients of Successful Change ...........................................................................110 Change Management ..............................................................................................110

ix

Change Leadership..................................................................................................114 Collaboration and Cooperation ...............................................................................114 Cultural Approach to Change .................................................................................116 Applying an Organizational Culture Perspective ...................................................116 Defining Culture .........................................................................................................117 Organizational Culture ............................................................................................117 Problems in Defining Organizational Culture ........................................................119 Culture versus Climate ............................................................................................120 Acculturation...........................................................................................................121 Culture in Colleges and Universities ......................................................................121 Faculty Culture........................................................................................................124 Student Culture .......................................................................................................126 Institutional Culture ................................................................................................127 Institutional Identity ................................................................................................127 Management of Academic Culture .........................................................................132 Culture Change .......................................................................................................133 Cultural Leadership .................................................................................................134 Leadership Theories ....................................................................................................134 Changes in Concept of Leadership .........................................................................138 Changes in Higher Education Leadership Research ...............................................139 Role of the University President .................................................................................140 Presidential Leadership ...........................................................................................141 Future of Higher Education ........................................................................................143

Achieving Balance ......................................................................................................145 Summary .....................................................................................................................146 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................147 Research Statement .....................................................................................................147 Research Questions .....................................................................................................148 Research Philosophy ...................................................................................................149 Qualitative Approach ..............................................................................................149 Rationale for Using Qualitative Approach .............................................................149 Strengths of Qualitative Research ...........................................................................151 Weaknesses of Qualitative Research ......................................................................151 Qualitative Methods ................................................................................................152 Research Design..........................................................................................................153 Phenomenology.......................................................................................................153 Case Study ..............................................................................................................154 Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................157 Document Retrieval ................................................................................................157 Historical Research .................................................................................................158 Institutional History ................................................................................................158 Online Open-ended Questionnaire ..........................................................................159 Interviews ................................................................................................................159 Interview Protocol .......................................................................................................162 Model Used for Qualitative Interviewing ...............................................................163

xi

Interview Format .....................................................................................................163 Interviewing Techniques .........................................................................................164 Interview Dynamics ................................................................................................165 Interview Process ....................................................................................................165 Guidelines Followed in Conducting Research Interviews ......................................167 The Informal Post-interview ...................................................................................169 Limitations ..................................................................................................................170 Validity and Reliability ...............................................................................................171 Internal Validity ......................................................................................................172 External Validity .....................................................................................................172 Data Reliability .......................................................................................................172 Strategies used to Seek Validity and Reliability .....................................................173 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................174 Transcribing Interviews ..........................................................................................175 Member Checks ......................................................................................................175 Data Analysis Methods ...............................................................................................175 Instrumentation ...........................................................................................................176 Reflection on Personal Experience .............................................................................178 Researchers Lens ...................................................................................................178 Researchers Journey ..............................................................................................179 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ...............................................................................................182 Part 1: Institutional Histories ......................................................................................182 California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP ............................................182

xii

United States International University (USIU) .......................................................217 Alliant International University ..............................................................................285 CSPP versus USIU ..................................................................................................292 School versus University ........................................................................................292 Previously Autonomous versus Independent, Separately Run Campuses ..............293 Traditional versus Non-traditional Boards, Faculty, and Academic/ Administrative Structure ...................................................................................293 Homogeneous Professional versus Heterogeneous Academic/Professional Cultures/Identities .............................................................................................294 Graduate versus Undergraduate Students ...............................................................294 Residential versus commuter Campuses and Students ...........................................295 Student-oriented versus Faculty-oriented ...............................................................295 American (Multicultural) versus Foreign (International) .......................................295 Understanding Differences versus Realizing Commonalities ................................296 Academic Program Review ....................................................................................296 Implementation: The Aftermath .............................................................................297 The Collapse of AIU ...............................................................................................299 A Perfect Storm.......................................................................................................301 WASC 2003 Special Site Visit ...............................................................................303 WASC Team Findings ............................................................................................305 The Rebuttal ............................................................................................................309 WASC Issues Show Cause .....................................................................................309 Post-show Cause .....................................................................................................310

xiii

Exit AIU President: Enter Acting President ...........................................................311 The Resurgence of Alliant ......................................................................................312 Enter Interim (and Later Permanent) University President Geoffrey Cox, Ph.D. .........................................................................................314 The Renaissance Plan: A New Beginning ..............................................................315 International and Multicultural Competence ..........................................................318 Alliants New Mission ............................................................................................320 Reinstituting CSPPs Mission Statement ................................................................322 Developing Alliants Strategic Position..................................................................323 Summary .................................................................................................................324 Part 2: Research Questions Answered ........................................................................327 Interviewee Background Information .....................................................................327 Pre-Merger/Acquisition ..............................................................................................328 Merger/Acquisition Background Information ........................................................328 Achieving Financial Sustainability .........................................................................331 Competition.............................................................................................................332 The Need to Diversify Programs ............................................................................332 Financial ..................................................................................................................333 Campus Facilities ....................................................................................................334 Programmatic ..........................................................................................................334 Compatible Missions: Internationalism and Multiculturalism ...............................335 USIU .......................................................................................................................336 CSPP .......................................................................................................................337

xiv

Additional Negotiations and Due Diligence Information .......................................341 Cultural Due Diligence ...........................................................................................342 Creation of a New Corporation and the Paper Merger ........................................347 Hindsight .................................................................................................................352 During-merger/Acquisition .........................................................................................353 Strategic Planning and Management ......................................................................353 Cultural Integration Efforts .....................................................................................369 Post-merger .................................................................................................................371 Impact of Merger ....................................................................................................371 A Note About the Research Methodology ..............................................................372 Excitement and Enthusiasm ....................................................................................374 Acceptance and Understanding...............................................................................376 Uncertainty and Skepticism ....................................................................................376 Fear and Opposition ................................................................................................377 Disappointment and Loss of Institutional Identity..................................................377 Resistance ...............................................................................................................377 Lack of Commitment and Motivation for Merger Success ....................................380 Threatened Egos and Turf Wars .............................................................................381 Frustration, Sadness, Anger, and Betrayal ..............................................................382 Change ....................................................................................................................386 I-MERIT: Bridging the Gap....................................................................................397 Leadership ...............................................................................................................398 Looking to the Future..............................................................................................421

xv

Students Thoughts .................................................................................................431 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................434 Lessons Learned..........................................................................................................434 Afterthoughts ..............................................................................................................465 Integration Planning and Management ...................................................................468 Leadership ...............................................................................................................471 Researchers Lens ...................................................................................................472 Recommendations for the University .........................................................................474 Strategic Analysis, Planning, and Management .....................................................474 Strengthening Alliants Institutional Identity and Culture......................................478 Launch New Program in Global Peace Studies ......................................................478 Education for the Soul ............................................................................................479 Utilizing the Alliant Name ......................................................................................484 Kaizen and the Future of Alliant International University .....................................487 Concluding Remarks Regarding the Merger ..............................................................494 Research Process: An Evaluation ...............................................................................497 Future Research ..........................................................................................................498 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................499 APPENDIX A. Online Questionnaire..............................................................................532 APPENDIX B. Interview Protocol ..................................................................................534 APPENDIX C. Institutional Documents and Archives Referenced ................................539 APPENDIX D. Letter of Invitation and Consent Form for Online Questionnaire ..........542

xvi

APPENDIX E. Letter of Invitation and Consent Form for Interviews ............................544 APPENDIX F. List of Interview Participants ..................................................................548 APPENDIX G. Participant Bill of Rights ........................................................................551

xvii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The realm of higher education is experiencing many serious changes in recent years and, as a result, has taken many shapes and forms. There are several factors that play a role in the overall complexity of the environment, in which higher education institutions exist and operate. Factors including rising costs, changing demands and student demographics, less availability of resources, emerging competition and technology, and rising expectations (Labaree, 2004) have all contributed to the modern pressures that colleges and universities must face. Such factors have changed the landscape so much so that the once universal idea of a university is no longer universal. The focus of this qualitative case study was an analysis of the merger of two private, nonprofit, multi-campus universities into one private, non-profit, multi-campus university. Background of the Study Turbulence in the environment in which institutions of higher education operate has, either directly or indirectly, led many institutions to engage in a merger as a responsive strategy. The reasons for a merger depend on the specific circumstances of an individual institution. There are basically two schools of thought regarding why institutions merge. Most authors point to financial conditions as the main reason for undergoing a merger. Others have a more proactive view on mergers as a strategy to achieve objectives, expand resources, and enhance missions. Martin and Samels (1994) discussed institutional strategies that can lead to successful college mergers. Martin and Samels argued that mergers occur in higher education for basically the same reason they occur in the corporate world as well as other sectors: to achieve strategic and financial

objectives and, in turn, realize growth through synergy. Marks and Mirvis (1998) added another perspective: The concept [of mergers] is alluring: combine the strengths of two organizations to achieve strategic and financial objectives that neither side can accomplish as easily or affordably on its own. The reality, however, is woeful: more than threequarters of corporate combinations fail to attain projected business results. In fact, most produce higher-than-expected costs and lower-than-acceptable returns. Meanwhile, executive time and operating capital are diverted from internal growth; morale, productivity, and quality often plummet; talented crew members jump ship; and customers go elsewhere. In the great majority of combinations, one plus one equals less than two. (p. 3) When mergers fail to achieve expected results, it has been referred to as merger syndrome. Mergers are not a new phenomenon in higher education. They have been taking place as early as colleges and universities were formed, most notably in the merging of single-sex institutions into coeducational ones (Carmen, 1990) or the desegregation of colleges and universities in the United States (U.S.; Wetstein, 2005). As pressures build and the fight for survival becomes eminent, more and more institutions look to mergers as a way to respond to environmental pressures (Jaschik, 2008; Strosnider, 1998; Van Der Werf, 2001). Throughout most of the history of higher education, the natural preference of institutions has been to strive for independence whenever possible. Despite this history of autonomy, institutions of higher education, like other organizations and firms, have not been immune to merger activities. Mergers in corporate America were aimed at building capacity, improving efficiency, and achieving economies of scale; in this respect, the rationale behind higher education mergers is the same for both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.

There were over 150 mergers in the U.S. during the years 1979-2002, among which approximately six to eight mergers each year were of colleges and universities. Unlike the for-profit sector that has experienced much of its merger activity in waves, higher education has not experienced this same kind of merger movement. In some cases, multiple university mergers have occurred in the same time period or year, but it remains unknown whether there were underlying forces that caused the mergers or it was just coincidence. Van Der Werf (2001) predicted an increase in merger activity mainly because costs are higher and competition is tougher. A review of the literature revealed an unbalanced and incomplete body of research about higher education mergers, which is currently in an exploratory stage. Research has consisted primarily of qualitative dissertations and case studies. A few notable researchers have written books and articles on college mergers (Chambers, 1986; Millett, 1976; Peters, 1977), although much of what has been written is anecdotal or prescriptive. One of the first empirical studies on higher education mergers was conducted by Peters in 1977. Peters surveyed 50 chief executives and used descriptive statistics to analyze responses on perceived merger success. Variables included size and public/private status, but it was concluded that these were not sufficient explanatory variables for merger process or success (Peters, 1977). Chambers (1986) is one of the nations few college merger specialists. Chambers introduced a model titled Economic Theory of Merger Choice to predict merger behavior in the private, non-profit, higher education sector. The variables employed were feasibility, uncertainty, growth of mission, reputation, managerial efficiency, and academic efficiency. The model described necessary, but not necessarily sufficient,

conditions for voluntary mergers. Millett (1976) conducted 10 case studies of institutional mergers. Millett concluded that, in most cases, the major thrust toward mergers was a direct result of financial conditions. ONeil and Barnett (1980) argued that the central reason for a merger is financial distress. There is a small body of research that has been conducted internationally on mergers in other systems of higher education in Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Japan, China, and others. These systems are government run, and merger mandates are initiated by governments to realize economies of scale through size, streamlining of programs and services, eliminating duplication, improving efficiency, broadening access, and coordinating and combining complementary programs. This type of merger consolidation also has been done in the U.S. public sector with state and community colleges in Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas. For public institutions, a merger may be mandated by the courts, legislature, or state administration. For private colleges, a merger is generally voluntary, though often accompanied by a strong financial argument. Statement of the Problem The general field of mergers has been researched in the corporate business sector. In contrast, other sectors that engage in merger activity, such as non-profit organizations and educational institutions, have received relatively little attention in the literature. The field is still in the beginning phases of research; thus, the need for exploratory research in other sectors, such as non-profit and public education institutions, is of critical importance. This qualitative case study is an exploration of the case of a university

merger that took place in 2001, in which two private independent institutions, the California School of Professional Psychology/Alliant University (CSPP) and the U.S. International University (USIU), combined to form a more comprehensive university, now called Alliant International University, and which resulted in multiple campuses both domestic and abroad. Reason for the Study The topic of mergers has been researched in the corporate business sector, but higher education mergers, which are receiving more attention as more colleges and universities merge, are still in the beginning phases of research. In addition, there is currently a lack of widely agreed-upon or standardized measures of institutional merger performance or success. The need for a greater understanding of the process and outcomes of mergers, particularly with their applications to higher education institutions, underlies the reasons for this study. The goal, however, was not to generalize, theorize, or make comparisons among institutions, but rather to portray the experience of one institution that underwent a merger, through the use of a qualitative case study. There is much to be learned from the Alliant merger experience that can be useful to not only this particular university, but to other colleges and universities that are undergoing or contemplating a merger. In turn, this study is an attempt to provide valuable insight from key university stakeholders who played a significant role in the merger. It is hoped that this research contributes important information to both the university under study and to the field of higher education mergers. The purpose of this study was to understand the process and outcomes that took place in one university merger as a result of the decisions made, as well as the resulting

changes, consequences, and success as perceived by those who had decision-making authority and played a significant role in the merger. Specific changes that took place include academic, program, system, administrative, governance, personnel, extracurricular, and overall change of focus for the university. These changes were the underlying result of how the merger was implemented, managed, and integrated; thus, many take-away lessons and recommendations are given in the hope of providing information for college and university administrators and planners who are contemplating or undergoing a merger. The goal of the study was to convey the experience of a merger situation for the people who were involved so that teachable moments could be made available. It was hoped that, in sharing the detailed history of the institutions, those who experienced, were a part of, or knew of these institutions would appreciate their saga and their stories. In this regard, the goal is to paint a picture of the life and times of these unique institutions as well as the institution that exists today. This research study not only provides an in-depth lens of the merger phenomenon with its application to higher education, but also solicits the interest of researchers and practitioners of various disciplines and fields to apply their knowledge and expertise in a collaborative atmosphere toward the solving of problems in a multidisciplinary, or interdisciplinary, application-based approach. The boundaries of disciplines should not discourage those in different or seemingly unrelated fields to come together to solve real problems (this research serves as an example to illustrate this point). Although it is still too early to write an institutional history for Alliant International University, it is hoped that this study will lay a foundation for this endeavor.

Despite the fact that the pre-merger institutions have their own rich and unique histories, Alliant International University, as its own institution, is still very young. Therefore, the shaping of Alliant International Universitys identity still resides largely with its former institutions, CSPP and USIU, and is still in the making. Although Alliant is progressively creating its own unique identity, much of its current identity draws from its legacy institutions. Those who came from and strongly identified with the previous institutions and still remain active in the current institution influence the degree to which Alliant can create an entirely new identity. Consequently, Alliant continues to extract heavily from its legacy institutions in defining its own identity. Alliants identity will always contain elements of its legacy institutions, as that is how it was created, but it will not be its own distinctive institution until several years from now and new generations of the institution will have come and gone. Gancel (2002) emphasized the importance of building a common history, saying that for a new culture to emerge, the new partners must start building their own shared history (p. 160). Thus, this dissertation was intended to disseminate the historical identities of both legacy institutions, CSPP and USIU, which shape the identity of what is today Alliant International University. This study, similar to all case studies, is an attempt to translate experience into a teachable moment. Due to the complexity of individual behaviors, motives, interpretations, events, and circumstances, clear-cut solutions or answers may not always exist; however, this does not discard the fact that important lessons can be derived. For those unfamiliar with the experience, it can shed a rhetorical light. For those internal to the organization, it can provide a reflective introspection into the series of events and

individual behaviors, both positive and negative, that took place to define the university today. Significance of the Study There remains a lack of agreement on what constitutes merger performance, especially in higher education, in which the success of a merger is very difficult to define and measure, and achievement is often defined by the viewer (Eastman & Lang, 2001). It is for this reason that perceptions of success of the merger in this study were based on the interpretations of others, specifically those who were essentially responsible for its results and success. The case study provides a unique example of a merger situation unlike any other reported in the literature. Thus, the uniqueness of the situation and the application of its lessons contribute to the overall field of mergers, and higher education mergers in particular. As mentioned previously, this studys goal is to contribute to the growing field of higher education merger literature by shedding light on the merger phenomenon, utilizing the perceived experience of several top university officials who were responsible for the university merger. Previous to this study, two related studies had been conducted on Alliant International University. The first was a dissertation written by a doctoral student (White, 2003) in organizational psychology, who also was a student of the university. The second study (Rozhon, 2008), a dissertation, was conducted by a student at the University of Pennsylvania, who was pursuing a doctorate in higher education management. The first study was concerned with ways employees cope during a merger and how this affects job performance, job satisfaction, and the ability to respond to major

organizational change. Employees of the university were asked to fill out a questionnaire that was analyzed using statistical measurements. The second study concerned program expansion as an adaptive strategy to align to a changing environment for specialized institutions, as classified by the Carnegie Foundation, meaning special-focus schools and colleges that usually concentrate in one profession or field. This study used a multiple case study method and examined three specialized institutions (all of which were graduate schools of professional psychology) and was an investigation of the strategies used to expand programming. Such strategies included forming partnerships/curricular joint ventures, entering into a merger/acquisition (as in the case of Alliant International University), and creating new programs internally. In addition to contributing to the field of higher education mergers, this study attempted to build on these previous studies that were conducted at this institution so that findings could add to a holistic and contextual picture rather than duplicate what already has been researched. Scope of the Study This study was conducted at one private, not-for-profit university (Alliant International University) that was created by the merger of two private, not-for-profit universities, CSPP and USIU, using a case study method. At its core, this study was an attempt to describe the entire merger process at one institution as viewed by multiple stakeholders who were involved from the beginning of merger negotiations and the reasons for merger, to resulting outcomes that contributed to the university that now exists ten years after the merger was implemented.

Limitations of the Study Because this study focuses on one private, not-for-profit university, the research findings cannot be generalized to apply to all colleges and universities. Rather, it is a story of one institutions experience with a merger and its resulting outcomes, the shaping of which are still in progress today; however, other institutions may share similar experiences and/or characteristics and can thus relate to or learn from this institutions experience. Case studies are, by nature, very limited in scope and generalizability of information. Nevertheless, they can provide in-depth research and experiential, qualitative (and sometimes quantitative) information that can be applicable to other, similar cases. Thus, the objective of the study was to conduct in-depth, contextuallybased research at one institution that can serve as an illustrative case to others interested in the merger phenomenon in higher education. This dissertation arose from the experience of a student who attended the university during the time the merger was implemented. The research, however, collected mostly via interviews, was taken from the perspectives of those in key decisionmaking positions, before, during, and/or after the merger, who played an active role in the implementation process. The main assumption of this study was that the different organizational cultures, identities, and leadership styles of the previously separate institutions would prove to have had a direct impact on the outcomes of the merger. Research Methodology Qualitative Phenomenological Case Study This case study was focused on the phenomena of mergers as well as elements associated with mergers, such as leadership, management, culture, and identity.

10

Although this case study centers on Alliant International University, it also includes the history of the institution, which includes the histories of the former institutions, CSPP/Alliant and USIU/Cal Western/Balboa Universities, to reveal the cultures and circumstances that contributed to and created what is now Alliant International University. In turn, although this case study is primarily concerned with the factors associated with the merger that took place, the history of this institution exhibits learning lessons (almost mini-cases) of what led up to the merger that contributed to the unique and rich history that has formed Alliant International University. It is quite uncommon for a business/strategic management researcher to use a qualitative methodology. Most business management dissertations employ a quantitative approach to the overall research design. By contrast, education research frequently employs qualitative methods, in which inquiry is often open-ended rather than operating on preexisting notions or hypotheses, as seen in quantitative methods. One of the reasons the business sector traditionally uses quantitative methods, aside from the background or preferred method of the researcher, is the nature of the empirical data sought. Data often is in the form of financial figures, or is measured on numerical scales, as in the case of surveys. Conversely, education research that is open-ended seeks to capture the experiences of others, to which no prior assumptions, theories, or hypotheses are made or imposed. Thus, in this case, the nature of the data the researcher was seeking was qualitative. Because the topic of this dissertation focuses on the experiences of others (as related to the phenomenon of a merger under study) without presuming what those experiences were like, a qualitative phenomenological case study design was used.

11

The use of qualitative research methods was not familiar to the researcher prior to the study. Thus, additional research was conducted on the topic of qualitative methods, particularly with application to (higher) education. Because this form of research was not previously familiar to the researcher, and the members of the dissertation committee (all business professors who traditionally use quantitative methods), the researcher compiled a Qualitative Research Methodology Guide drawn from the qualitative research literature to help serve as a reference to those unfamiliar with qualitative methods. Additionally, the researcher consulted with individuals who were intimately familiar with qualitative methods, particularly with applications to educational research. Longitudinal Case Studies Longitudinal studies typically study developmental trends or phenomena over long periods of time, even lifetimes or generations. The present study is longitudinal, as it covers the life spans of the previous institutions that merged, as well as the institution that it has become today. Field Site Research Although the merger that created Alliant International University concerns the (system-wide) merging of seven campuses into one institution, the majority of the field research was conducted on the San Diego campus. The remaining interviews were conducted on the San Francisco and Los Angeles campuses. The researcher investigated three main areas of inquiry: (a) The reasons for and decisions that led up to the merger; (b) the resultant changes and outcomes that occurred after the merger; and (c) the lessons learned and insights gained from the merger experience. Because a merger is a long and continuous process rather than a single event

12

in time (Millett, 1976), a look to the future from the perspective of certain key university officials also was conducted to tie past events to the present-day situation. Participants were selected by the researcher to be interviewed. Interviews were conducted using a research-question protocol with an open-ended, semi-structured, and focused format. Administrators who participated in the study provided both general and specific information about changes that occurred as a result of the merger as well as their personal views regarding those results. Participants were chosen based on the positions they hold or held at the university, their level of knowledge in regard to the topic, and their decision-making role in the overall implementation of the merger. Interviewees of this nature often are referred to as key informants or elites. Some of the faculty members who were interviewed also teach and have experience in topics such as leadership, strategic management, and mergers and acquisitions. The data collected were in four forms: (a) documents; (b) interviews; (c) open-ended questionnaires; and (d) personal experience. Documents and Records Document and record retrieval is a common technique used in data collection by qualitative researchers (Merriam, 1998). In qualitative research, triangulation, or the use of multiple sources of evidence, allows the researcher to collect data, using more than one method for the purpose of seeking to ensure validity and reliability of data, before drawing any conclusions about the findings. Documents and records (e.g., web site, promotional materials, board and committee meeting minutes, accreditation reports, annual reports, organizational charts, and strategic plans) thus provided additional sources of evidence to the researcher.

13

Interviews Interviews are another commonly used method in qualitative research, particularly in educational research (Tierney & Dilley, 2002). Interviews provide access to individuals who are of particular interest to the researcher and may have specialized or key knowledge, experience, information, or insight that is otherwise difficult or impossible to obtain using other data gathering techniques, such as surveys. Interviews, unlike surveys, do not presume what the respondent knows and, therefore, do not limit the information they can provide. Interviews are an important source of data collection when the research question begins with What or How as opposed to Why (Creswell, 1998). Open-ended Questionnaires Participants, who included faculty, staff, former students, and alumni, answered open-ended questions in an online questionnaire (Appendix A) regarding institutional culture both before and after the merger, as well as their personal experience with the merger. Participants had previous institutional affiliations with either CSPP or USIU. In other words, they had been students or employees at the previous institutions both before and during the merger. Ethnography: Personal Experience Although this type of technique may be viewed by some as biased and subjective, it also employs an inside view of a situation under study that external researchers may not be able to provide. The researcher had an interest in the general merger phenomenon that has taken place in higher education and what that experience is like for those in charge.

14

As a student, the researcher had lived this phenomenon by experiencing the effects of a merger that had taken place at the university during her years of schooling. The researchers perspective is incorporated in Chapter 5 for the conclusions and recommendations. As such, this research was conducted with an expanded, holistic view of the merger experience as seen by several university stakeholders. The theoretical framework that supported this study was drawn from theory and literature pertaining to mergers (in for-profit, non-profit, and higher education sectors), change, organizational culture and identity, leadership, and strategic management. Higher Education as a Business The shift in thinking of higher education as a business has never been more prevalent than it is today, as evidenced by the increased emergence of corporate/for-profit players who are looking to get into the higher education game (Ryan, 2001). Just as with the case of public and non-profit institutions and organizations now having to compete with for-profit rivals, the same is true in the business of higher education. Those on the for-profit side bring with them corporate objectives and strategies (such as stock options and performance measures), while many of the traditional, non-profit institutions operate in much the same way as charitable stewards of public interest and trust, relying on tuition revenue, donor generosity, government funding, and/or taxes and tax-exempt status to help fund their institutions in efforts to break even to meet their rising costs. The business of education might be seen as a lucrative commodity (Ruch, 2001) with much opportunity to enter into that market demand, while, to others on the opposite side of the spectrum, the idea of education as a means to make money corrupts its purpose (Weisbrod, Ballou, & Asch, 2008). The challenge remains to strike a balance

15

between providing quality and maintaining financial sustainability. The requirement to do more with less is just one of the reasons why non-profit (and for-profit) institutions should look to the field of strategic management to provide new ways of thinking and running the business end of a college or university while still upholding the academic standards and values of educational excellence that have long made institutions worthy of the publics trust, confidence, and philanthropic contributions. The current Alliant International University president has a saying that seemingly fits the notion of higher education today. He says that in business it is a dog-eat-dog world, and in higher education it is just the opposite. Doing business in the higher education environment has become immensely competitive in recent years, particularly with the decrease in private and government funding that, a few decades ago, financed the creation, expansion, and maintenance of the nations colleges and universities in areas such as the land-grant movement, financial aid, grants and charitable donations, and the G.I. Bill. Funding in these areas still continues but has not kept pace with the rising costs of doing business that all institutions and organizations face. In addition, the rise of online and for-profit colleges and universities that cater to student consumer demands by offering convenience, affordability, and access to higher education programs also have made the higher education landscape more competitive. These for-profit rivals bring with them competitive business practices such as revenue generation, incentives for profit, cost containment, and large marketing campaigns that target a once secondary and now substantial lucrative market of the degree-seeking adult (part-time) and working population. The for-profits most notably bring with them a consumer mindset by taking business principles of gaining customers (e.g., students)

16

by offering them a service they seek: a degree. These players generally have more revenues to dedicate to providing the core no-frills programs and services they offer by choosing not to invest money in auxiliary services and facilities that take up a considerable portion of an overall institutions budget. Conversely, traditional academia has conventionally held a custom of adapting slowly to major change. This is largely due to many factors, including their desire to maintain and uphold their institutional integrity, traditions, standards, and values rather than conform to new fads, trends, and whims. This is not an unworthy ambition, as part of what has made the education system so strong, particularly in the U.S., is its history of excellent colleges and universities. These institutions have been able to remain successful by preserving what they individually consider to be enduring and sacred. By refusing to change their whole composition and identity in favor of following popular trends to cater to what is considered current in pop culture or mainstream society at a given moment, they have stood strong against the test of time. This refusal to follow trends is what transforms colleges, universities, and schools into institutions (e.g., similar to the institution of marriage or government) as opposed to companies (many of which are short-lived in comparison). Companies make profits by tapping into the current market needs of the time and can, therefore, more easily adapt to the forces at work in the business environment as well as dissolve when they are not meeting demands. This is a small price to pay compared to what a college or university community must endure and loses when it is forced to shut its doors. Most institutions would do anything to prevent such scenarios, which is why many are teaming up via mergers, acquisitions, or other cooperative arrangements. Part of the price an institution

17

must pay when engaging in market adaptive behavior is having to sacrifice parts of itself that people have come to cherish. Nonetheless, despite this difficulty, the institution must try to succeed for the betterment and integrity of all who have been involved in its legacy. As the decision to pursue mergers and other cooperative strategies emerges for many institutions as a response to a changing environment, one thing that remains certain is the need to apply sound business practices that are fundamental to the concepts and paradigms in strategic management in the higher education sector (or industry). The field of strategic management is no longer solely confined to the for-profit business sector. Strategic management, as a comprehensive framework, is now expanding into other arenas of organization/institution, such as government, non-profit, and education; and many types of managers are beginning to realize some of the transferable benefits of using this approach (Alfred, 2006; Bryson, 2004; Bush & Coleman, 2000; Chaffee, 1985; Cyert, 1981; Keller, 1983; Massy & Meyerson, 1992; Perlman, Gueths, & Weber, 1988; Peterson, Dill, & Mets, 1997; Tierney, 1998; Young, 1981). For those who lead and manage the change involved in a merger or other cooperative arrangement, success and survival of the new merged organization depend on how the change is planned, led, and managed. Knowledge is Power This is exceedingly true when new ways are found to apply knowledge, and the tackling and solving of problems is not restricted to those believed to be considered experts in a particular area. This is not meant to disregard individuals whose professions and backgrounds are specific to one area of study or regard them as invaluable. To the contrary, they are of utmost importance to that study or profession to

18

which they have committed themselves. Those who seek to connect and integrate various fields, disciplines, and areas of expertise are not able to do so without the foundation laid and groundwork done by those who contribute to the advancement of knowledge in such areas. At the same time, however, it is also beneficial to include the perspective of others whose expertise lie in other disciplinary circles when attempting to understand and solve problems and address issues. For example, a detective team who works to solve a criminal homicide case consists not only of those who have a police background in catching criminal offenders, but also includes crime scene investigators, information analysts, forensic specialists, and psychologists. The value of diverse points of view cannot be emphasized enough. Boyer (1990) proposed the idea of scholarship of integration, in which scholars can give new meaning to isolated facts by putting them into a broader perspective; in other words, they make connections across disciplines by placing the specialties in a larger context. This also means fitting ones own research, or the research of others, into a sizeable framework. Boyer stated that specialization, without broader perspective, risks pedantry (Boyer, 1990, p. 19). He believes that it is through connectedness that research is ultimately made authentic (p. 19). Boyer also proposes that students should be encouraged to work across specialties by taking courses in other disciplines to gain a broader perspective. Boyer (1990) maintains that the categories of human knowledge have become more and more specialized, and the need for interdisciplinary insight has increased. Graduate students may have high technical competence but lack larger insight needed in life. Boyer argued that such narrowness can be avoided by adding an integrative

19

component in which the scholar can find metaphors and paradigms that give larger meaning to specialized knowledge. Boyer (1990) also contended that more thought should be given to the purpose and content of the dissertation, which increasingly consists of extremely specialized and isolated topics. Students are often discouraged from introducing ideas of their own, and creative integrative thinking is often repressed. Boyer proposed that future scholars should be asked to think about the usefulness of knowledge and gain understanding of how their own study relates to the world beyond them. Boyer concluded with the idea of building bridges across disciplines and warned against making too great a distinction between careerism and the liberal arts, and between self-benefit and service. The aim of education is not only to prepare students for productive careers, but also enable them to live lives of dignity and purpose; not only to generate new knowledge, but to channel that knowledge to human ends; not merely to study government, but to help shape a citizenry that can promote the public good. (Boyer, 1990, p. 78) In sum, the goal of this research goes beyond the collaborative theme of the merger as merely a legal act of joining two or more entities. It also serves as a metaphor to encourage a way of thinking that stimulates working beyond the boundaries of discipline or field by seeking opportunities to collaborate with others of diverse points of view and get out of the comfort zone: a learning without borders approach. This dissertation places the practice of mergers into a larger context by examining their prevalence in for-profit, not-for-profit, and higher education sectors, thereby utilizing a multidisciplinary perspective. The literature on higher education mergers that applies to this case is mostly derived from private, non-profit colleges and universities in the U.S., although some research on public, for-profit, and international higher education

20

systems is included to present a global view of the higher education merger phenomenon. Because of the nature of the non-profit (tax-exempt) status in higher education (38% of all colleges and universities are non-profit; Weisbrod et al., 2008) and merger motives that go beyond the bottom-line, non-profit sector organization mergers also were researched. For-profit corporate merger research is included in the literature review as well, as this sector dominates much of the information available on mergers. Other areas of inquiry that were researched included organizational and institutional culture and identity, leadership, change, and implementation. In the spirit of recognizing Alliants faculty, many sources of relevant faculty research are cited in this study. The general theoretical framework that supports this study is outlined using a global model. This global model includes the overall general context and themes or factors on which this study was based. It explores the actors involved as well as the dynamics and relationships of the factors that affect the outcomes of mergers, specifically in colleges and universities. The global model is presented in Figure 1. The purpose of the global model is summarized by Lombriser (as cited in Abu-Rahma, 1999): 1. It helps to identify where the study fits into the broader picture. 2. It helps to include other various dimensions that have an effect on the study domain by using a multi-disciplinary approach and utilizing different disciplinary lenses, such as cognitive-rational, psycho-sociological, and political-economic perspectives. 3. It assists in choosing a domain of study that is mostly unaffected by exogenous (outside) variables.

21

4. It helps to identify exogenous variables that are not part of the narrower research domain, thus allowing the research to be built upon.

Global Model

Environment
Information Filter

USIU

Perception of Environment

Alliant

Leadership Style

Institutional Culture/ Identity

Strategic Choice

Leadership Style

Institutional Culture/ Identity

Merger Gap

Performance

Figure 1. Global model. Environment The term environment (or business or external environment) as used here encompasses all of the economic, sociopolitical, technological, and geophysical forces in the segment of the world in which an organization chooses to operate (Sullivan & Antoniou, 2006). Each [organization] faces a different reality in the marketplace depending on its products, competitors, customers, technologies, government influences and so on (Deal & Kennedy, 1982, p. 13). Kuh and Whitt (1988) also discussed environment:

22

A rapidly changing external environment poses a threat to the one outcome all colleges have in common- survival. Economic cycles, state and federal agencies, corporate sponsors, accreditation organizations, and other groups [and stakeholders] have the potential to significantly influence institutional policy. When times are uncertain, routine organizational responses to systematic changes in the external environment may not be adequate. (p. 1) Such change and discontinuity that occurs in the environment is known as environmental turbulence (Ansoff, 1979). Turbulence refers to the combination of changeability of events in the environment. The external environment serves as the key indicator for the organizations strategic position, which is pivotal to its success. Perception of the Environment Managers of organizations base their organizational strategies on how they perceive their business environment (Ansoff & McDonnell, 1990). A cultural view of strategy, however, rejects objectivistic ideas about an organizations environment and instead emphasizes reality as a social construction (Alvesson, 2002). What is defined as reality is real only in the context of human interpretation. As such, the interpretation of the environment may determine an organizations strategy, but this does not define the environment itself. Authors in strategic management view this concept as an organizations strategic information filter, which guides the firms choice of strategy (Strategic Choice), such as a merger (Ansoff & McDonnell, 1990). Institutional Culture and Identity Sporn (1996) noted the importance and involvement of culture in developing organizational strategy in which strategies should be based upon an analysis of the culture, a definition of the mission and a clarification of the purpose of the institution (p. 45). Sporn also noted that a strong culture can serve as a basis for adaptation by

23

providing support for strategic management [in which] successful implementation of strategy is dependent upon the orientation, whether external or internal, of the underlying culture (p. 45). The basic assumption is that universities as complex social organizations are dependent on the external environment and that culture plays a major role for strategic management (Sporn, 1996, p. 46). The linkage of organizational culture with university management has strategic as well as social implications. On the one hand, by understanding and developing cultural conditions universities can become more competitive. On the other hand, with an increased focus on cultural issues a unifying culture can develop that enhances identification, motivation, and the match between organizational and individual values of university members. For university managers the task is to reflect the culture of their institution and develop it in that direction. Strategies will become easier to implement and the organization can better adapt to changes. (Sporn, 1996, p. 57) Kuh and Whitt (1988) found that colleges and universities are social communities as well as educational institutions. Cultural perspectives can be used to describe, understand, and appreciate college and university life (p. 1). The environmental dimension of organizational culture is the objective context of people, events, demands, and constraints in which an institution finds itself (Chaffee & Tierney, 1988). An organizations perception of its environment provides important information about the way the organization perceives itself. This can include an institutions values, beliefs, norms, and priorities held by institutional members. These values are most visible in the institutions mission and its leadership. The nature of an institutions leadership is, according to Chaffee and Tierney (1988), in many respects, the most tangible expression of its values (p. 21). Together, these aspects make up the institutions identity.

24

Identity is a factor that influences the corporate/institutional image of an organization (Gubrium & Holstein, 2001). These authors contend that the creation of a strong institutional identity involves consistency in the organizations actions, behavior, products, and brands and is a reflection of its mission statement. Identity supports and sustains the culture and mission of the institution (Devlin, 1998). A positive institutional identity can promote a sense of purpose and belonging within an organization as well as encourage employee and stakeholder commitment and involvement (Gubrium & Holstein, 2001). The cultures and identities of institutions can have a serious impact on the performance of the merged institution. The challenge for leaders is to find a way to preserve, integrate, influence, and perhaps shape the previous institutional cultures, or create a new culture and identity for the new institution. This entails a university leaders ability to influence the community to take action and build a new vision for the future. Leadership Style Leadership is defined in terms of how a leader appears to the viewer (Hersey, 1984). Its not how [leaders] see themselves that matters, but how they come across to others theyre attempting to influence (p. 27). Thus, good leadership depends on the perspectives of the individuals in an organization whose opinions are shaped by the institutional history and culture (Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin, 2006, p. 12). Bargh, Bocock, Scott, and Smith (2000) noted: Leadership style is a reflection of the big picture or vision of the organization and how information is structured and shared in order to translate the vision into something more than a dream. In leadership style, therefore, there is, or at least should be, a clear connection with organizational vision and steps that are taken to translate it into practical reality. (p. 131)

25

Leadership is an important factor that affects change in an organization. The change that accompanies merger is, therefore, influenced by the style of leadership. In this study, leadership style refers to the individual leadership of the individual institution (both preand post-merger), as reflected by the people, policies, procedures, governance, management, vision, and implementation strategies of that institution. Performance The concept of performance can be measured, analyzed, and interpreted in multiple ways. One term that is often used to describe performance is organizational effectiveness. Organizational effectiveness is the concept of how effective an organization is in achieving the goals or outcomes the organization intends to produce (Frost & Gillespie, 1998), which is essential for an evaluation of a merger. Similarly, performance and organizational effectiveness also are difficult to assess, particularly in institutions of higher education. Cameron (1978) reported that difficulty in identifying criteria for effective performance is one of the underlying reasons for its ambiguity. It also is difficult to specify concrete, measurable goals and outcomes as well as make comparisons among higher education institutions. Individual institutions tend to view themselves as having unique characteristics and goals, and as not being comparable to other institutions (Cameron, 1978, p. 610). Lastly, organizational effectiveness criteria are likely to differ depending on whose viewpoint is taken (Cameron, 1978). Thus, many researchers advocate relying on major decision makers and directors, or the organizations dominant coalition to generate the criteria and to supply effectiveness information (Cameron, 1978, p. 606). In turn, this study investigated the perceptions of

26

top university officials in key decision-making positions to determine merger Performance, which was translated into Perception of Success. Research Model The previous global model presented an overview of the theoretical framework used to support this study. The research model (Figure 2) is a presentation of an outline of the themes or factors that apply to this case study of the merger of Alliant University and USIU to create Alliant International University. It was hypothesized that the differences (or gaps) in institutional culture and identity, leadership style, and perception of the environment for the two merging institutions would have a direct effect on the changes and outcomes that resulted from the merger. This forms the basis for the perception of a merger and its success. Perception of Success replaced the term Performance, as used in the global model, because the concept of performance is ambiguous in terms of how it can be measured, interpreted, and analyzed. It also connotes an objectivistic framework, which contrasts the purpose of this study. The perception of the success of merger was derived from top university officials who played a major role in the decision making regarding the merger and its implementation.

27

USIU Culture & Identity Gap

Alliant University Culture & Identity

Leadership Style
Perception of Environment

Gap
Gap AIU Change Outcomes
Perception of Success

Leadership Style
Perception of Environment

Figure 2. Research model. The research model focuses on the different cultures/identities, leadership styles, and perception of the environment that came together in the merger. Both sides were very different in these three areas. Research Questions The research questions were formulated based on the researchers existing knowledge on the merger and themes that appeared in the merger literature (Strategic Planning and Management/Implementation, Change, Impact of Merger, and Leadership) that were translated into the headings and accompanying questions for each stage of the merger (Pre-Merger, During-Merger, and Post-Merger) as well as questions pertaining to institutional mission, vision, culture, and identity. Research questions were then converted into interview questions (see Interview Protocol in Appendix B), as most of the

28

research questions concern the views and perspectives of interviewee participants. The following research questions guided the study: Pre-merger: Background Information RQ1. Had any of the interviewees ever been involved in a merger before? If so, what was the context? The vast majority of college managers and administrators are likely to experience only a single merger in their career and are, therefore, unlikely to carry forward previous experience of merger situations (Bates & Santerre, 2000). This is not usually the case in the for-profit business sector, where mergers occur more frequently; indeed, some companies and consultants specialize in this approach to organizational growth. However, it should be noted that experience with mergers does not necessarily improve chances for success (Cartwright & Cooper, 1996). RQ2: What were the original objectives/reasons for a merger? Research was conducted regarding typical college and university objectives, reasons, and drivers for mergers. Strategic objectives form the rationale for the decision to merge by outlining specific, anticipated benefits of the merger. The objectives of merger must be defined if they are to be realized and evaluated (Millett, 1976). In addition, objectives should be communicated to all stakeholders. The practical advantages of a merger should be promoted if they are to be widely accepted in the community (Millett, 1976). Some institutions develop formal statements of objectives they are trying to achieve through merger while others do not (Eastman & Lang, 2001). Most authors on higher education mergers point to financial stringency as the underlying cause and most common reason for a merger (Eastman & Lang, 2001;

29

Deubell, 1984; Millett, 1976; Mulvey, 1993; ONeil & Barnett, 1980; Shirley & Peters, 1976). Eastman and Lang noted that there are considerable differences in the objectives of an institution under financial stringency than an institution in which the objectives are essentially ones of building a strengthened university. Secondary factors related to financial objectives may include: (a) cutting administrative and academic costs (Shirley & Peters, 1976); (b) increasing institutional security and stability; (c) increasing enrollments and revenue (Gaff, 1970); (d) avoiding closure (ONeil & Barnett, 1980); (e) increasing efficiency, effectiveness, and economies of scale (Brinkman, 2000; Eastman & Lang, 2001); (f) improving budgetary flexibility (Somervill, 1983); (g) addressing declining resources, enrollments, and appropriations (Benezet, 1983; Martin & Samels, 2009; Millett, 1976); (h) meeting mandates or pressure from government or other constituencies (Harman & Harman, 2003; Millett, 1976; Mulvey, 1993); and (i) dealing with rising competition (ONeil & Barnett, 1980; Weisbrod et al., 2008). Other authors note that some colleges and universities may have a more proactive and strategic motivation to merge and use combination and collaboration to achieve mutual growth (Martin & Samels, 1994). The mutual-growth approach to mergers combines mission-complementary institutions to enhance the vision, mission, and goals of each, which results in an extended institutional identity, a strengthened academic program base with expanded educational resources (including faculty, staff, students and enrollment, finances, assets, and alumni) and the creation of institutional synergies. Additionally, some authors found that other common reasons for merger included: (a) close geographic proximity, (b) existing extensive cooperative arrangements, (c) need

30

to establish coeducation or desegregation, (d) desire to couple complementary programs, (e) desire to enhance academic reputations (Chambers, 1983a; Millett, 1976), (f) desire to expand capacity or consolidate public institutions into state systems (Harman, 1986), and (g) desire to expand or increase access to cater to and meet the needs of more diverse student populations (Harman & Harman, 2003). Similar to the for-profit sector, higher education institutions also use merger to seek growth, synergy, and diversification (Gaughan, 2002). In addition, non-profit organizations and higher education institutions use mergers to improve finances, gain access to a larger skill-set, enhance the pursuit of the institutional mission (La Piana, 2000), rationalize resources, prevent duplication and overlap, respond to financial pressures, and improve services (Mather, 2000). RQ3. Have some or all of those objectives been accomplished? If so, which ones? The determination of accomplished objectives is based upon the perceptions of those interviewees involved in the merger, which requires reflective consideration on behalf of the informed interviewees. RQ4. What were the major forces that drove the decision to merge? It is important to recognize the environmental factors that played a role in the overall decision to pursue a merger. There are a multiplicity of forces that influence actions and behavior of colleges and universities, including the decision to merge. The notion as to what forces drive an institution to merge depends upon the particular institution and its context. Some of the forces described in the literature on higher education mergers include (a) a response to growth and change in the overall higher education sector (Martin & Samels, 1994); (b) the changing global environment for higher education (Eastman &

31

Lang, 2001); (c) the rapid expansion of knowledge (e.g., knowledge economy, information age) and diversification of scholarship (Eastman & Lang, 2001); (d) inflation and rising costs associated with institutional operations (Eastman & Lang, 2001), coupled with financial constraints (Massy, 1996); (e) diminished philanthropic support (Shirley & Peters, 1976); (f) decreased state and federal governmental funding (Wiley, 2003); (g) tuition dependence and unsuccessful fundraising (Millett, 1976); (h) rising technology budgets (Martin & Samels, 2009); (i) institutional fragmentation and non-viable programs (Harman & Harman, 2003); (j) high turnover of staff, faculty, administration, and, especially, presidents (Martin & Samels, 2009); (k) low student retention (Millett, 1976); (l) changing demands and student demographics (Labaree, 2004); and (m) rising expectations for accountability, responsibility, and improved performance (Austin, 1990; Dill, 1982). Many of the forces that drive colleges and universities to merge are the same for businesses and non-profits. For example, (a) the increasing pace of technological change; (b) the international scope of globalization; (c) expanded forms; sources, and intensity of competition (e.g., hyper-competition); (d) the emergence of new industries; (e) deregulation in some industries; (f) economic growth or decline; (g) inequalities of income, wealth, and access; (h) risk reduction and diversification; (i) competitive reaction; (j) perception of underutilized or undervalued assets; (k) anticipation of synergies in markets, finances, operations, or human resources; (l) legal and tax benefits; (m) access to new technologies or processes; (n) ego, or emotional or psychological motivations (McCann & Gilkey, 1988); and (o) issues of organizational liability,

32

viability, and survivability (McCormick, 2001) are just some of the environmental factors that propel firms and non-profits to seek a merger. RQ5. What were the expected benefits/synergies to be gained from a merger? Again, the expected benefits and synergies may correlate to the objectives, drivers/forces, and reasons for merger, but it is important to note the mindset of key/top university officials in terms of what they expected from a merger to compare their perspective to the resulting outcomes and what objectives were and were not achieved as a result of the merger. There are many types of synergies that can be gained though a higher education merger including: (a) financial synergies; (b) administrative, program, and curriculum synergies; (c) reputation or prestige-enhancing synergies; (d) fundraising and institutional development synergies (Martin & Samels, 1994); (e) property, asset, and technology synergies; (f) personnel and human resource synergies; (g) strategic planning, management, and leadership synergies (Eastman & Lang, 2001); (h) enrollment synergies (Harman & Harman, 2003); (i) institutional identity, organizational culture, mission, and vision synergies; (j) public relations, recruitment, and marketing synergies (Martin & Samels, 1994); and (k) policy, process, and governance synergies (Eastman & Lang, 2001). Synergy can result in larger and stronger disciplinary units, collaboration across different programs, opportunities for students to combine subjects in new ways, improved library and information services, and improved quality of administrative services (Kyvik, 2002). Harman and Harman (2003) stated that mergers have the potential to produce substantial longer-term benefits, particularly larger and more comprehensive institutions, stronger academic programs, improved student services, enhanced student choice, greater

33

institutional flexibility and, under certain conditions, increased efficiencies and costsavings (p. 29). RQ6. Why was the particular institution (either CSPP/Alliant or USIU) chosen as a merger partner? Millett (1976) noted that small, independent colleges like CSPP/Alliant and USIU may have two or three basic financial weaknesses, which include high expenditure per student, both in terms of total expenditures and in general and educational expenditures. It is also likely for these institutions to be heavily dependent on tuition revenue for operating income, and therefore vulnerable to enrollment volatility and the competition of public, lower-priced education. It is probable that these institutions have high fixed costs, including academic and institutional support, student services, plant and facility operation and maintenance, auxiliary enterprises, and debt service. Thus, a merger may be seen as the desirable, or feasible, response to some of these weaknesses. Numerous studies indicate that smaller colleges and universities typically seek to merge for the following reasons (Lang, 2002): 1. Truly new revenue may be generated from new programs that could only be offered through a merger. 2. An institution may secure new net resources for their programs and services. More often than not, the net gain is due to reduced unit costs than additional revenue. Thus, the new revenue is only perception-based; the real source of financial gain is reallocated savings. 3. An institution may benefit financially from government incentives to merge with larger institutions.

34

4. Depending on the larger institutions reasons for considering a merger, the larger institution may be prepared to direct additional resources to the smaller institution. Those resources will usually be budgetary allocations, but in some cases they may involve access to better facilities and services than the smaller institution could have afforded itself. 5. The merger may relocate the smaller institution to a more favorable location. 6. The merger may result in less-lopsided program costs. 7. The merged institution may be able to achieve critical mass in small areas of specialization. 8. Accumulated debt may be assumed by the merger partner or by the government. Some of these reasons could apply to any merger, but they apply more often to smaller and more specialized institutions. Eastman and Lang (2001) recommended that the leaders of a relatively small institution bear in mind that a merger with a substantially larger partner is almost always an acquisition (e.g., takeover), rather than a consolidation. As such, an acquired institution will likely need to change to conform to its acquirers system and values. In turn, the acquired institutions prospects for retaining its identity and culture are uncertain. Eastman and Lang (2001) stated that the leaders of a large institution should recognize that, if they desire to preserve features of the smaller institution they are acquiring, they will have to take deliberate steps to do so, during which they should ask themselves how much post-merger autonomy will be necessary to preserve what they

35

value. Extending some of the features of an acquired institution to ones own institution requires substantial change for both institutions. RQ7. Were there any other potential partners being considered for the merger? If so, which ones? ONeil and Barnett (1980) noted that a university board may decide to explore several potential options and partners simultaneously or sequentially. The confidentiality for which these matters are handled may allow for this and even suggest its strategic use (ONeil & Barnett, 1980). It is not uncommon for the process of identifying a partner to take six months or more, which would involve the entire due diligence and negotiation process. ONeil and Barnett strongly advised that the board of trustees be aware of and critically assess its own attractiveness and the liabilities it offers before approaching a merger partner. The key is matching what it has to offer to an institution with a strong enough market position, or the need to change its market position, so that the merger is seen as to be or value to both partners in merger. (ONeil & Barnett, 1980, p. 26) It should be noted that this process involves a large amount of work, time, tact, and wisdom (ONeil & Barnett, 1980). RQ8. What type of merger was it? Consolidation? Dissolution? Merger is a legal act, involving legal agreement and legal relationships (Millett, 1976, p. 52). There are generally two types of merger agreements: Consolidation, where two or more corporations dissolve their respective legal identities and become a wholly new corporation, carrying with it all the properties and obligations of the former institutions, and Dissolution/acquisition, which involves an agreement under which one

36

institution is legally dissolved and its assets and liabilities are acquired with court approval by the surviving institution (ONeil & Barnett, 1980). RQ9. Was there any involvement on behalf of faculty, students, staff, alumni, etc. pre-merger? If so, in what context? Higher education mergers are complex and extensive events that involve many stakeholders. As to which stakeholders are actively involved depends, according to Eastman and Lang (2001), on the conditions of the circumstances, and, in particular, the culture of the merging institutions, the system of governance (both internal and external), the required expertise needed, and the constituencies whose support is vital to the institutions well-being and survival (p. 171). Millett (1976) contended that presidents and trustees should plan mergers with the inclusion of faculty, staff, student, and alumni acknowledgement and recognition. Participation in such planning, at least by listening to constituents and stakeholders, may break down the barriers to acceptance of the merger and pave the way for future buy-in (Millett, 1976). RQ10. Was there any formal recognition for the ending of either of the previous institutions? It is imperative to realize that merger is a time of stress and anxiety for most, if not all, members of the institution (ONeil & Barnett, 1980). The closing or merging of an institution has been compared to the death of a relative or loved one (Ross, as cited in ONeil & Barnett, 1980). People associated with a college or university that is going out of business, whether closing or merging, often react as do those who have lost a loved one. OConnor and Willmer (as cited in ONeil & Barnett, 1980) argued that much can

37

be learned from the Kubler-Ross (1969) framework that describes reactions to death and dying. The sequence of denial, anger, depression, and acceptance is visible in many college closings and mergers (ONeil & Barnett, 1980, p 84). Members of an organization that is disappearing must, according to Eastman and Lang (2001), recognize and come to terms with the passing of the old order before they can identify with and fully participate in the new establishment: Most do so eventually on their own, but it expedites and facilitates the process if there is some form of formal recognition of the change, and some expression of respect for that which is ending. How this is done depends on the particular circumstances of the merger, but some symbolic recognition of the change is common, as is some opportunity for those affected to mourn their loss. (p. 230) RQ11. How was the merger communicated internally and externally? An effective, strategic communications plan is crucial to the merger process and can reduce internal and external resistance to help ensure a successful merger. The key is to understand what type of communication is needed, to whom, and when (McLaughlin, 1996). Preparing the groundwork for merger is an important step, in which it is wise to begin the groundwork early, so that once negotiations are made public, they are perceived as appropriate and legitimate and a positive foundation for eventual integration is laid (Eastman & Lang, 2001, p. 222). For both partners, this involves articulating what is hoped to be gained through a merger and then cultivating support for it. Eastman and Lang stressed that the benefits must not be exaggerated. Unrealistic expectations such as funding, job security, or the extent of change should not be encouraged (Eastman & Lang, 2001). Otherwise, feelings of frustration and betrayal will arise once a different reality begins to unfold (Harman, 2002).

38

For the leaders of both institutions, preparing ones institution for merger may involve addressing pockets of resistance, opposition, and anxiety and creating a positive climate for negotiations and for eventual integration. In the delicate and important days and weeks after merger, the new members of the organization should be welcomed into it, and treated with respect by the organization of which they have become a part. Creating this climate may require concerted awarenessraising beginning early on. Some de-mythologizing may be called for. (Eastman & Lang, 2001, p. 223) RQ12. How were alumni notified about the merger? Keeping everyone informed and reminding people of the purpose of the merger is important and might minimize some of the anxiety or conflict that may arise (Cairns, Harris, & Hutchison, 2003). McLaughlin (1996) stated that it is useful to give [stakeholders] the chance to buy into the process because, while mergers may start from the top and work down, they are only successful from the ground up (p. 17). RQ13. What form of transition/integration planning was formulated for the implementation of the merger? Much preparation needs to be dedicated to the implementation of changes, transitions, and integration of combining organizations. This includes formulating plans for communication, training, retention, layoff policies, and so forth (Marks & Mirvis, 1998). As part of the merger process, the transition and integration of the merging parties entails bringing the merged institution to life in all respects. This involves (a) marking the change; (b) adopting new identities; (c) building the new management team; (d) integrating functional units (both academic and support); (e) providing orientation, training, and development; (f) integrating policies, processes, and systems; and (g) sustaining and building external relationships (Eastman & Lang, 2001).

39

The sequence in which issues can be undertaken most effectively depends on the circumstances of the particular merger or acquisition. Mintzberg (as cited in Eastman & Lang, 2001) spoke of deliberate strategies, unrealized strategies, and emergent strategies, all of which ultimately lead to realized strategy. Good strategic planning allows for and accommodates all three. This is an especially important lesson in mergers (Eastman & Lang, 2001). RQ14. How was this transition implemented and managed? Who was responsible for this? Eastman and Lang (2001) stated that, during the transition period, the emphasis: shifts from those empowered to make and approve a deal on behalf of the institution to those with expertise and legitimacy needed to make plans for the merged institution, those with the authority to approve plans, and those who must attempt to manage the transition. (p. 171) They further asserted: Planning for the merger typically involves the heads of [academic] units [and] representatives of the faculty, and selected staff and students. The vehicle for planning is often joint committees or task forces. As the transition continues, plans for the merged institution are brought forward for approval by the individuals or bodies with the necessary authority. At the same time, appointments are made to positions in the merged institution. Although officials of the pre-existing institutions may continue to carry out their roles until the effective date of merger, the momentum generally shifts toward those appointed to positions of leadership in the new organization. As they begin to appoint other administrators and staff and build the new organization, they carry the transition forward. (p. 174) Eastman and Lang (2001) suggested that participation in the merger process is usually limited to a small number of key players in the early phases and extends as internal and external approvals and buy-ins are sought. Once the merger has taken place,

40

participation expands to encompass all of the employees of the merged organization as well as students and other internal stakeholders (Eastman & Lang, 2001). RQ15. What were the major changes made during and after the merger was implemented? A merger is an effort to accomplish change. Therefore, the merged institution will not continue in the same way as the separate institutions had previously existed (Millett, 1976). Mergers and acquisitions involve change for both partners, even if they differ in size. Mergers also are partnerships in change. One way to differentiate between different types of mergers is in terms of the amount of change undergone by members of the merging institutions (Eastman & Lang, 2001). Consolidation entails a high level of change for both merging partners. In contrast, a pure acquisition concentrates most of the change in one partner (the acquired institution), while the acquiring institution continues more or less indifferently (Eastman & Lang, 2001; McDaniel Johnson, 2007). Just as it takes time to accomplish the objectives of a merger and to evaluate the results achieved, Millett (1976) noted that there is no such thing as a painless merger of colleges and universities. Millett found that there is a price to be paid, and that price is change. The situation after the merger cannot be expected simply to replicate the circumstances before the merger. RQ16. What were the results and outcomes of those changes? Buono and Bowditch (1989) stated: Since mergers and acquisitions can readily change the nature and character of the organization in question, they can be usefully conceived of as a form of organizational transformation, a process of large-scale change characterized by a high level of complexity, multiple transitions, uncertain future states, and longterm time frames. Such major organizational changes and uncertainties related to

41

the transformation can precipitate high levels of stress, tension, anxiety, and resentment on the part of many organizational members. (p. 12) Fullan (2007) suggested that the crux of change is how individuals come to grips with reality (p. 20). While there is a difference between voluntary and imposed change (Marris, as cited in Fullan, 2007) claimed that all real change involves loss, anxiety, and struggle. Real change, whether desired or not, represents a serious personal and collective experience characterized by ambivalence and uncertainty (Fullan, 2007). However, if the change works out, it can result in a sense of mastery, accomplishment and professional growth. The anxieties of uncertainty and the joys of mastery are central to the subjective meaning of educational change and to the success or failure thereof. (Fullan, 2007, p. 23) RQ17. Has the mission, vision, and goals changed for the merged university? If so, how? Austin (1990) noted that a key element that contributes to a college or universitys culture is the mission, vision, and goals of the institution. Chaffee and Tierney (1988) stated: The mission expresses the college or universitys core set of values and its underlying ideology. Institutional mission can provide a collective understanding of the institution and play a key role in defining for members what the institution can and cannot do. It not only provides the rationale and criteria for developing programs, but also provides standards for performance and self-criticism. (p. 20) From the mission, vision, and goals comes the planning, management, governance, structure, and leadership style of administrators; curricular programs and academic standards; recruitment of students, faculty, and staff; as well as the overall actions, behaviors, and activities of the university.

42

The institutional mission [vision, and goals are] important element[s], affecting recruitment processes, socialization of new faculty, tasks faculty must fulfill, and performance standards. The culture of an institution (as defined both by its individual characteristics and by its type) is a strong force affecting [the] values and activities [of the institution]. (Austin, 1990, p. 66) RQ18. Has the culture and identity changed for the merged university? If so, how? The culture of a college or university defines, identifies, and legitimates authority in educational settings (Kuh & Whitt, 1988). Kuh and Whitt contended that institutional culture develops from an interplay between the external environment and salient institutional features, such as an institutions historical roots and external influences, particularly (a) the support of constituents (e.g., alumni, philanthropic sponsors); (b) the academic program; (c) a core faculty group (including senior faculty and administrators); (d) the social environment as determined by dominant student and faculty subcultures; (e) cultural artifacts such as architecture, customs, stories, language, and others; (f) distinctive themes that reflect core values and beliefs and make up the institutions ethos; and (g) contributions of individual actors, such as a charismatic president or innovative academic dean. An important aspect of a merger is the continued identification in some fashion of the college or university that is being merged (ONeil & Barnett, 1980). Millett (1976) found that provisions were made to recognize and preserve the identity of the merged institutions he studied. This continuity helped in making the merger more accepted on campus after the actual process of the merger had been completed (Kuh, 1993). RQ19. What was the general response and reaction of: faculty, students, staff, and alumni to the merger?

43

For top university officials to effectively manage the merger and its effects, they would have to have had some general sense of how key constituents and university stakeholders felt, responded, and reacted to the merger. Cannon (1983), on describing the impact of merger, stated, A change of this magnitude creates uncertainty and anxiety among individuals involved in the merger situation (p. 19). Steffen (2008) noted the often negative language that accompanies merger, such as loss of identity and the death of one or both parties (p. 34). These words express the sense of stress and anxiety often associated with merger as well as how people respond to change. The way that people cope with and respond to merger varies with each individual and has a direct impact on institutional performance, the educational experience of students, on scholarly productivity and teaching, on the quality of administrative and other services, and a host of other aspects (Eastman & Lang, 2001). Chambers (1983a) posited that different people, most notably faculty, react to a merger differently and see it in completely different ways, in which it is: a mixture of personal style and academic background. The political scientist may see merger as a problem for power distribution; to the anthropologist it may mean construction of a new community; for the humanist it is perhaps a leadership issue; for the manager, a chart of chances; and for the educationist, a question of first, purpose. (p. 17) These instincts form the perception and reaction to a merger and, thus, chart the map for how the merger will be implemented (Dahl & Skodvin, 2002; Lonsway, 1969; Shaw & Lee, 1997; Smart & St. John, 1996; Tierney, 1991a, 1988; Tierney & Chaffee, 1988). Professional organizations, such as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP; 1982), have taken a unified position on the issue of mergers and reorganizations. The organizations primary concern is the resulting effect on faculty, especially with

44

respect to faculty status and the academic programs of the institutions involved (AAUP, 1982). Even in the corporate/for-profit world, the human side of mergers is regarded as immensely critical to the future integration and success of the organization. Eastman and Lang (2001) determined, The anxiety, disruption, and commotion experienced by employees [during merger] affects organizational performance (p. 174). Buono and Bowditch (1990) and Schweiger and Walsh (1990) stated that the human side of mergers must not be underestimated. RQ20. What areas of the university had the most resistance and the least resistance? Mergers and acquisitions are not always greeted with enthusiasm by constituent groups involved (Eastman & Lang, 2001). It is, therefore, not unusual to encounter opposition and resistance by constituents affected by a merger. In Milletts study (1976), three out of ten institutions were faced with substantial opposition, and even hostility (Eastman & Lang, 2001, p. 230). Institutional leaders, in turn, need to be aware of the possible reactions that a merger can bring about to prepare for and manage the situation accordingly (Eastman & Lang, 2001). Political factors in almost all cases impact the merger process (Winfrey, 1989). When the University of Massachusetts contemplated a merger with Boston State College, problems regarding faculty retention emerged, in which the state university and state college systems differed in requirements for faculty promotion and tenure. This resulted in a long, uphill battle that involved renegotiations with faculty unions on terms of contract (Winfrey, 1989). Therefore, it is important to be aware of and prepare for the political factors that take shape in mergers.

45

RQ21. How did the university respond to, manage, or overcome this resistance? Some of the strategies used to address change and integration and respond to, manage, and overcome resistance can be found in the literature on change theory and implementation. Specifically, the literature on change addresses such aspects as (a) the speed of change and timeline for integration; (b) the role of change agents and leaders; (c) the models used in the change and decision making process, such as top-down (bureaucratic) or bottom-up (collegial); (d) building consensus; (e) shared governance and leadership; (f) using incentives, rewards, and team-based approaches; and (g) many other methods and strategies (Baldridge & Deal, 1983; Buono & Bowditch, 1989; Cannon, 1983; Fullan, 2007; Green & Jonas, 1997; McDaniel Johnson, 2007; Mulvey, 1993; Nordvall, 1982; Radtke, 1997; Reed, 1978; Rhea, 2004; Rowley & Sherman, 2001; Shirley & Peters, 1976; Steffen, 2008; Van Schoor, 2003; Wan, 2008; White, 2003). RQ22. How was the university culture and identity affected by the merger? The influence of culture and identity in most merger circumstances is extremely powerful (Harman, 2002). While considerable attention has been given to the role of governance, policy, leadership, and administrative issues, relatively little attention has been paid to the role of culture and identity (Harman, 2002). Harman suggested: Attempting to create integrated and coherent educational communities from the merging of cultures that are historically and symbolically non-complementary poses enormous challenges for higher education leaders. Even when institutions seem to be highly compatible and able to achieve profitable merger synergies, they often possess underlying cultural differences that can impede integration. (p. 37) Harman and Harman (2003) posited that: Cultural and symbolic factors are particularly important between institutions with substantially different characteristics and traditions. Appreciating and managing

46

cultural differences are key elements of effective leadership in merger negotiations and implementation. Visionary, transformational leadership that is sensitive to cultural factors greatly facilitates merger processes. (p. 40) Much attention should be focused on the aspect of culture and identity when merging two organizations. To the extent of how much attention should be geared towards culture depends on the specific circumstances. Regardless of the specific amount of time and effort required, the element of culture plays an enormous role in facilitating the merger process, and some research has been done on the specific role of culture, particularly with its relation to change (Berquist & Pawlak, 2008; Chiang, 1990; Dahl & Skodvin, 2002; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Eastman & Lang, 2001; Eckel & Kezar, 2002; Kuh & Whitt, 1988; Miste, 1994; Pettigrew, 1979; Schein, 1999; Smart & St. John, 1996; Tierney, 1990, 1991a; Tierney & Chaffee, 1988). Harman and Harman (2003) stated that sensitivity to human and cultural factors and effective leadership are of utmost importance in achieving success in merger processes (p. 29). RQ23. How do interviewees perceive the culture and identity today, ten years after the merger? Identity and culture are two interrelated concepts. While the term culture is used to describe the norms, attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors of the organization and its members, identity represents an image of the organization held by members to which they can identify with the culture (Chaffee & Tierney, 1988). Hughes (1993) noted that institutional characteristics such as admissions policy, academic reputation, faculty reputation, enrollment size, tuition costs, financial aid, location, variety of courses or programs, transferability of courses/credits, reputation for preparing graduates for jobs,

47

student activities, social activities, attractiveness of campus, personal atmosphere and attention, and other institutional factors contribute to the overall image of an institution. Unlike organizational image, which concerns how we are perceived by others, organizational identity addresses the question of who we are as an organization (Tan, 2005). Albert, Ashforth, and Dutton (2000) believe that the identity of an organization resides in the heart and heads of its members. These authors stated that it is important for members to have an internalized cognitive structure of what their organization stands for and where it intends to go: in short, a clear sense of organizational identity. Social identity and identification also can be useful in explaining or interpreting how individuals behave and act on behalf of the group or organization (Albert et al., 2000). Chaffee & Tierney (1988) stated: Identity begins with mission, but goes beyond it to include vestiges of history, traces of personalities of many current organizational participants, and effects of leadership and strategy. It includes certain capacities that are inherent in how resources are arranged and the configuration of values, structure, and enacted environment. Identity includes all such elements that define what the organization is and suggests what it could become. (p. 187) In a formal sense, the merger of colleges and universities can be accomplished at a specific time. In an operational sense, a merger takes much longer to achieve (Millett, 1976). Millett suggested that it may take from 5 to 10 years before the successor institution is in an acceptable reality to faculty and students. It may take even longer before alumni accept the fact that their loyalty is desired and deserved by a different enterprise (Millett, 1976). RQ24. How did interviewees leadership/management style influence, impact, or affect the merger and integration?

48

Locke (2007) noted that organizational cultures are critical to the successful integration of staff, students, and other stakeholders within a newly combined higher education institution. Lockes study found that the cultures and subcultures of the two institutions studied played a critical role in the merger implementation. Leadership and management, therefore, had to be culturally sensitive to both institutions and their values, histories, and traditions to build commitment and loyalty to the newly combined institution. Harman (2002) stated, Managing the culture dimension of mergers is such an important element in helping to ensure integration, creating a sense of loyalty to the new institution and addressing the likely high levels of conflict and stress (p. 92). It is, therefore, vital that leadership understands and is sensitive to institutional cultures when approaching a merger (Harman, 2002; Locke, 2007). Chaffee and Tierney (1988) stated, One of the most important challenges leaders face is to achieve cultural integration. Lack of integration, persisting over time in areas that are central to organizational functioning, tends to culminate in crisis (p. 26). RQ25. What kind or style of leadership and management do interviewees believe is needed during a time of merger? In addition to the hard issues such as finance, governance, and management, which have received the most attention compared to the soft issues such as human relations, culture, and communications, there are a number of applicable lessons that colleges and universities can learn from the merger literature, especially with regard to leadership and management. Chambers (1983b) argued that the merger process needs to move through an increasingly accurate and balanced understanding of: (a) what the new institution can be;

49

(b) who will move it to fruition; and (c) what will be needed in structure and resources to support the plan. In other words, the new institutions mission, legitimacy, and feasibility all must be given balanced attention. Schein (1992) stated that organizational leaders must (a) understand their own culture well enough to be able to detect where there are potential incompatibilities with the culture of the other organization, (b) be able to decipher the other culture, and (c) be able to articulate the potential synergies or incompatibilities in such a way that others involved in the decision process can understand and deal with the cultural realities. Good organizational leaders, therefore, must possess the ability to learn a new culture, make changes to the culture, and create buy-in for the new, combined culture. Birnbaum (1992) found that good leadership permits college constituents to maintain or move toward agreement on basic institutional norms and values, which in turn affects their willingness to accept influence from others and increase their commitment to the collective enterprise (p. 151). In addition, Institutional culture and history play a major role in determining what a president [or other institutional leader] can do (p. 160). Leadership has always been held in high regard with respect to higher education administration and management (Carlson, 1994; Fox, 2008). Most theories on leadership focus on the personal characteristics or skills of the leader, and are often viewed as a pattern of influence (Bass, 1990). Strategic leadership takes the notion of leadership to the next level by including the aspect of strategy (Morrill, 2007). This means that leaders use their influence to both inspire and lead the organization in a new direction. Thus, it is really a combination of both leadership and strategic management. Morrill stated that

50

strategic leaders must be values driven, possess the ability to think strategically, develop strategies, share decision making through collaboration and empowerment, and motivate others to achieve the strategy. The ability of a strategy is to create a shared sense of the future motivates a community to make commitments, set priorities, and take actions. If strategy is about purpose and vision, then it has to be a form of leadership (p. 68). Strategic and visionary leadership requires direction setting, being an agent for change, being a spokesperson, being a coach, and being a role model (Nanus, 1992). It also requires choosing and formulating the right vision. Nanus found the right vision (a) attracts commitment and energizes people, (b) creates meaning in peoples lives, (c) establishes a standard of excellence, and (d) bridges the present and the future. Formulating a vision requires (a) gathering information, (b) processing the information, (c) conceptualizing the vision, and (d) evaluating the vision (Locke, 1991). Strategic leaders must be able to craft both a compelling vision for the future of their institutions and a successful strategy for achieving it (Abu-Rahma, 2009). Such a leadership vision requires a comprehensive strategy based on improving and optimizing the key characteristics of the university (Duderstadt, 1997). University presidents [in particular] are expected to develop, articulate and implement visions that sustain and enhance their institutions academic quality and reputation (p. 41). Strategic Leader Types The literature points to two basic types of strategic leaders: the risk-taker, which refers to a leader who exhibits openness to change and innovation, and the status quo maintainer, which refers to a leader who is not comfortable with and averse to change (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1993). The risk-taker is more likely to be entrepreneurial,

51

and their strategies may be more likely to challenge and change orientation practices. The status quo maintainer is more likely to implement conservative strategies. Strategic leader types also have to do with the leaders need for control and refers to how willing the leader is to give up control, namely, how willing he or she is to delegate authority and allow others to participate in decisions (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1993). The authors further stated: Individuals who have a high need for control are likely to create a culture that encourages conformity. Decision making will be centralized, and the structure will provide the leader with control over all aspects of the organization. At the other extreme, individuals with a low need for control will allow others to make decisions and will be comfortable with delegation. The culture of their organization is likely to be more open and flexible, with the leader having low need for control. (p. 80) Chaffee and Tierney (1988) examined the managerial techniques of presidents of colleges and universities in financial decline and, in turn, suggested three combined strategies to achieve solutions: linear, adaptive, and interpretive. Linear strategies are aligned with achieving goals. Adaptive strategies are determined by the organizations alignment with its environment. Interpretive strategies take into account the cultural and symbolic perspectives of the organization, such as values, symbols, and emotions that influence behavior. These strategies are mutually dependent and should be balanced to employ an effective strategy. The remaining sections of the research questions (Perception of Success and Looking to the Future) address top university officials perceptions regarding the overall success of the merger, how they perceive the university that exists today, and where they predict the university to be in the future. The last section (Lessons Learned) is intended to query top university officials regarding the insights that were gained and the advice

52

they may have for other educational administrators and leaders who are undergoing or contemplating a merger as part of their reflection on the institutional merger experience. RQ26. What do interviewees consider to be the most successful outcome(s) as a result of the merger? RQ27. What do interviewees consider to be the least successful outcome(s) as a result of the merger? RQ28. What were the most difficult aspects of the merger? RQ29. What were the least difficult aspects of the merger? RQ30. How do interviewees think faculty, students, staff, and alumni view the outcomes/results of the merger, ten years later? RQ31. Overall, do top university officials believe the merger was a success? RQ32. Where do interviewees see the university ten years from now? RQ33. Where would interviewees like the university to be in ten years? RQ34. What planning mechanisms are currently in place to reach these goals? RQ35. What planning mechanisms should be in place to reach these goals? RQ36. Do interviewees think that there will be an increase in college and university mergers in the near future? If so, why? RQ37. What were some of the lessons taken from this experience? RQ38. What are the major regrets (if any) as well as satisfactions of key university officials regarding the decisions made? RQ39. What advice do interviewees have for those who are looking to pursue an institutional merger in higher education?

53

Summary This chapter contained a discussion of the overall purpose of the study and concepts for the research design. As this was a qualitative phenomenological exploratory case study, the researcher collected the data as an immersed and full-member stakeholder of the university under study. At the same time, however, careful consideration of researchers bias and reflexivity was fundamental to the design of the research methods, interview techniques, and data analyses. In qualitative research, reality varies with each person (Merriam, 1998). The researcher, therefore, carefully considered the role as the research instrument as well as how personal bias and reflexivity might affect the study. Consequently, the researcher consciously took steps to ensure that people, events, and situations spoke for themselves rather than were largely interpreted, evaluated, or judged by the researcher (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000). The merger phenomenon in higher education is receiving more attention as more colleges and universities merge, although the research literature is in the beginning phases and at this time remains somewhat limited. There is no standardized or widely agreed-upon measure of institutional merger performance or success, which is why this study focused on people who were (or are) the key decision makers from both sides of the merger as a way to describe this universitys merger experience. At most universities, it is inherently difficult to gain access to such high-profile people, but because the researcher and/or committee members have working relations with individuals in such positions, it was thought to be a unique opportunity to shed light on the merger experience by utilizing such significant perspectives.

54

The intent of this research was to discover, analyze, and interpret information relative to the merger that took place between two previously independent higher education institutions. The basic framework for this study focused on decisions made during the merger process of 2001 to present-day 2013 and the perception of the outcomes and success as a result of the decisions made by those who were essentially responsible for those decisions and outcomes of the merger that took place. The research literature is organized into literature pertaining to mergers (for-profit, non-profit, and higher education), change theory, organizational and institutional culture and identity, leadership, and strategic management with its application to higher education institutions. The research literature begins broad-based to gain a better understanding of the overall field of mergers and acquisitions. The research connects theory taken from the literature review and applies it to the empirical world of the research conducted.

55

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this study was to understand the process and outcomes that took place in one university merger as a result of the decisions made, as well as the resulting changes, consequences, and success as perceived by those who had decision making authority and played a significant role in the merger. Specific changes that took place include academic, program, system, administrative, governance, personnel, extracurricular, and overall change of focus for the university. These changes were the underlying result of how the merger was implemented, managed, and integrated; thus, many take-away lessons and recommendations were given with the intention of providing information for college and university administrators and planners contemplating or undergoing merger. Mergers and Acquisitions Overview Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) exist in every industry, sector, and organization. Whether combining organizational units, consolidating resources, or acquiring a competitor, M&As are seen as a strategy for growth, synergy, and diversification (Gaughan, 2002). For-profit companies use quantitative and qualitative measures for financial, operational, and managerial performance such as net profit, return on investment, stock price, productivity levels, and employee satisfaction, among others (Lubatkin, 1983; Zollo & Meier, 2008). Non-profit organizations generally view success as fulfilling their mission or purpose and perhaps increasing their impact in the community to help a wider audience (McCormick, 2001).

56

Higher education institutions traditionally assess success in terms of quality, specifically of teaching, research, and service, thus attracting high-quality students and faculty, diversified sources of funding and donor bases, and a reputation for excellence (Perkins, 1973). These indicators are, of course, broad and vary with each individual company, organization, and institution (Birnbaum, 1988). Merging with or acquiring another organization has become common and is expected to create or increase successful performance (Contractor & Lorange, 2002). The literature review is organized with the research into for-profit, not-for-profit, and higher education mergers, which are the central focus of the study. For-profit Mergers and Acquisitions The majority of merger literature is found on the for-profit corporate business sector. Several decades of empirical research have produced a greater understanding of the phenomenon of merger within industries. Researchers used large sample sizes of firms that engage in M&As to develop theories, predict behavior, and assess performance (Andrade, Mitchell, & Stafford, 2001; Berkovitch & Narayanan, 1993; Bernile, 2006; Dicenso, 2005; Dunham, 1976; Hogarty, 1970; Lynch & Lind, 2002; Markham, 1955; Nelson, 1959; Nguyen & Kleiner, 2003; Steiner, 1975; Weston & Mansinghka, 1971). These studies indicate that M&A activity occurs in waves, or movements (Browne & Rosengren, 1987; Golbe & White, 1988). To date, there have been five widely recognized merger movements in U.S. industrial history: 1893 to 1904, the 1920s, the 1960s, the 1980s, and 1993 to the early 2000s. All five periods show a high volume of M&A activity (Browne & Rosengren, 1987).

57

Although the terms merger and acquisition are often used interchangeably, Sherman and Hart (2006) stated that they are two different types of agreements. A merger is defined as two or more companies that unite, usually through the exchange of stock shares. An acquisition occurs when one entity purchases the assets or shares of another through payment of cash, buyer securities, or other valuable assets. Gaughan (2002) stated that that the two most common reasons organizations merge are for growth and synergy. Often, a faster approach to gaining resources for internal or external growth is to merge with or acquire another firm. Synergy is the ability of a combined organization to achieve more than their separate parts, which is a winning scenario for the two parties and the newly created/merged organization. The combination of the firms, therefore, is greater than the value of the sum of the two firms independently, expressed mathematically as: Value (A+B) > Value (A) + Value (B) Marks and Mirvis (1998) argued that synergy is realized when it results in a productive combination. In turn, there are two types of synergy. One derives from cost economies, or cost savings, and the second from revenue enhancement. Cost economies often involve the elimination of duplicate cost factors, such as redundant personnel and overhead. Revenue enhancing synergy includes expanding products, services, and customer base, and capitalizing on each others capabilities, such as marketing skills, to significantly increase the combined revenues (Gaughan, 2002). Another common objective for firms to merge or acquire is to achieve diversification, a practice whereby firms seek to lower their risk and exposure to volatile segments in the industry by adding other sectors or units to their corporate umbrella

58

(Gaughan, 2002). Ansoff (1968) posited that firms may diversify when their objectives can no longer be met within the product-market scope defined by expansion and/or when diversification opportunities promise greater profitability than do expansion opportunities and/or internal growth methods. There are four types of corporate merger variations. 1. Horizontal: The combination of two competing firms to share the same product lines and markets, principally in the same industry (Chen, 1996). 2. Vertical: The combination of partners engaged in different stages or levels of production of a common product (for example, an ice cream maker merging with a cone supplier). Firms engaged in vertical mergers are essentially looking for complementary resources (Hitt, Harrison, & Ireland, 2001). 3. Conglomeration: Merger partners are neither competitors nor buyer-sellers in the same supply or production chain. The firms have no common business areas (Phadungtin, 2003). 4. Concentric: Involves a common capability between firms such as marketing or technology which, when combined, generates business synergy (Phadungtin, 2003). Forces of Change Weston and Weaver (2001) claimed that the increased pace of M&A activity in recent years is attributed to several forces of change that include (a) the pace of technological change; (b) the reduced costs of communication and transportation; (c) the international scope of globalization; (d) expanded forms, sources, and intensity of competition; (e) emergence of new industries; (f) deregulation in some industries; (g)

59

economic growth (high stock price, low interest rates) or decline; (h) inequalities of income and wealth; and (i) the rising levels of valuation and equity returns. Weston and Weaver concluded that the most significant forces are the technological changes, which include personal computers, computer services, software, servers, information systems, and the Internet. McCann and Gilkey (1988) posited that the waves of M&A activity can be explained by four sets of common conditions or factors: sufficient opportunity, financial capacity, managerial capacity, and compelling motivations at a firm and industry level, and perhaps even at a general economy level. Organization-specific Forces McCann and Gilkey (1988) also indicated firm-specific forces that underlie the motive to merge or acquire: Risk reduction and diversification Competitive reaction Perception of underutilized or undervalued assets Anticipated synergies in markets, finances, operations, or human resources Legal and tax benefits Access to new technologies or processes Ego: emotional or psychological motivations Risk Reduction (or Risk Sharing) and Product/Service Diversification This concept was solidified in the third wave of conglomerate M&As. The rationale is that firms could guarantee investors a certain level of financial performance and returns by acquiring other firms that have different, even opposite, performance patterns. This is known as countercyclical growth, and, when one industry falls below 60

target performance levels, the other is up, so they offset each other (McCann & Gilkey, 1988; Pitts, 1976; Rovit & Lemire, 2003; Salter & Weinhold, 1979). This also can give an organization operational flexibility (Marks & Mirvis, 1998). Competitive Reaction Ideally, firms will engage in proactive merger-acquisition activity. Proactive activity has a long-term corporate strategy that guides the firms decisions and actions. If the firm finds itself in a reactive situation, it views the merger or acquisition as an end, not a means (McCann & Gilkey, 1988). Underutilized and Undervalued Assets The availability of debt and idle cash reserves, as portrayed in the 1980s merger movement, coupled with the soft stock market, contributed to a high percentage of hostile takeovers during that decade. The rationale was that some firms are worth more broken up than whole (McCann & Gilkey, 1988, p. 35). A Search for Synergy As a concept, synergy is one of the most sought-after reasons for a merger or acquisition. In reality, however, many firms have found synergy to be elusive and are unable to operate or capitalize on it (Meeks, 1977). Strategic management research on mergers commonly refers to synergy as the degree of relatedness and is usually used as an assessment tool in evaluating a potential merger partner and the prospective benefits to be gained (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988). Synergies can exist in marketing, finances, operations, and human resources but should be verified after the firms act because they must be nurtured, sometimes at great expense, before they are realized (Goold & Campbell, 1998; McCann & Gilkey, 1988; Prokesch & Powell, 1985; Sirower, 1997).

61

Legal and Tax Benefits There may be legal and tax benefits for firms who are considering a merger or acquisition, such as favorable tax treatments for leveraged buy-outs using employee stock ownership plans. Firms also may use a merger or acquisition to exploit the advantages of less regulation in certain industries (McCann & Gilkey, 1988; MacDonald, 1999). Access to New Technologies, Processes, Resources, or New Business Segments The pace of technological change is so great that many firms simply cannot keep up. Their research and development (R&D) capabilities may be too slow, too costly, or resource intensive, or have fallen too far behind the competition. Thus, acquiring new technologies or processes is quicker than investing from within for these firms (McCann & Gilkey, 1988). The integration of the two firms can result in organizational innovation and learning as well as product creation if synergy is achieved (Marks & Mirvis, 1998). Ego: Emotional and Psychological Reasons Emotional, psychological, and interpersonal reasons for M&As have not been widely researched or explored; nevertheless, these reasons remain a subject that many believe contribute to the desire to merge or acquire. A CEOs desire to master an industry and create an empire, beat an arch rival to a potential acquisition, and get frequent media attention always are present and, in some cases, are major factors (McCann & Gilkey, 1988, p. 39). Daniel and Metcalf (2001) stated that other reasons to merge are to reduce competition, increase efficiency, acquire intellectual or physical capital, and to achieve an international or global presence in the marketplace. Akatcherian (2001) concurred with these reasons for M&As, concluding that there are 10 basic strategic drivers behind the majority of deals made:

62

 Achieving organizational growth Increasing market share Gaining entry into the market or access to new distribution channels Obtaining new products, services, or resources Keeping pace with change Capitalizing on political and regulatory changes Pursuing innovations or discoveries in products or technology Lessening competition Strengthening reputation or gaining credibility Responding to or capitalizing on economic scenarios The process of a merger is generally said to have three stages: pre-merger, duringthe-merger, and post-merger (Appelbaum, Gandell, Yortis, Proper, & Francois, 2000). The pre-merger stage begins once the decision to merge has been made, but before the announcement has been made public and the legal issues have been finalized. The essential aspect of this stage is that it is a preparatory stage (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Krupar & Krupar, 1998; Lewis, 1999). During-the-merger stage is when the effects of merger are being felt by stakeholders and, especially, the employees. There is an integration of processes, policies, authority, culture, production, and people. This stage is often associated with uncertainty, as unfamiliar changes are taking place and transition is occurring (Appelbaum, et al., 2000; Bridges, 1991; Buono & Bowditch, 1989; Kimberly & Quinn, 1984).

63

The post-merger stage is the time for assimilation, acculturation, and adjustment. Individuals deal with change, and perhaps loss, as they start to understand the effects of the merger (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Bohlin, Daley, & Thomson, 2000; Carleton & Lineberry, 2004; Feldman, 2000; Kubler-Ross, 1969; Lajoux, 1998; Marks & Mirvis, 1992; Shrivastava, 2002; Tetenbaum, 1999; Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg, & De Lima, 2002). Integration Planning To successfully implement a merger, an organization must conduct integration planning. It is common for the new organization to put transition/integration teams with a leader or manager in place to guide and facilitate the merger process. Responsibilities of such a team would be to (a) develop key human resource policies; (b) handle consolidation and reduction of staff early in the process; (c) re-recruit top talent and employees that the organization wants to keep; (d) provide technical skills and change management training; and (e) clarify the roles, responsibilities, and expectations for the new organization (Daniel & Metcalf, 2001). Daniel and Metcalf (2001) suggested that these teams are structured best when composed of managers from both organizations who have a clear mandate to plan for and monitor the integration process. The primary purpose of a transition team is to focus key players on decisions that stabilize the organization and help to build momentum. Transition teams generally report to an integration leader (IL) to ensure cross-group communication and that the teams do not overlap in terms of making decisions and recommendations. Sub-teams are also created and are responsible for human resources,

64

legal, finance, purchasing, information technology, sales and marketing, and culture issues (Bragg, 2009). It is common for a senior-level person to be named as the IL to be the voice of authority rather than have numerous perspectives that confuse everyone. The role of the IL is a full-time job that can be expected to last from 12 to 18 months. Some companies are making this a regular and ongoing position, but the IL usually serves in this role only until the main integration targets have been met, and then moves on to other projects (Bragg, 2009). The IL is held accountable for the creation, delivery, and monitoring of a disciplined strategic plan for a successful integration and for getting promised results on time. The role of the IL is to build bridges between the acquirer and acquired company that will allow information and resources to pass freely, with the ILs serving in a consulting capacity to both sides (Daniel & Metcalf, 2001). Neglecting integration planning can lead to an organization that is unprepared to handle the aftermath of integration, and many problems can ensue. Success is Fit When evaluating integration, it is important to look at the issues of compatibility, which some refer to as fit. McCann and Gilkey (1988) proposed three kinds of fit for a successful merger: financial fit, business fit, and organizational fit. Financial fit. Financial fit, in the short term, occurs when the price paid, the terms or conditions agreed upon, and the financial capacity of both firms make the deal successful. A high fit exists when the price is affordable and the firm can finance debt from cash flows, the terms and conditions are acceptable to both parties, and there is

65

financial capacity sufficient for additional expenses during the integration stage. A low fit occurs when the deal seriously damages the viability of the participating firms. It can mean that the terms and conditions are too restrictive and, thus, opportunities and advantages must be foregone, or that the financial capacity is constrained to the point that planned investments cannot be made. Low fit translates into poor financial performance (McCann & Gilkey, 1988). Business fit. High business fit occurs in the short term when both firms can realize increased performance. This translates into synergy that exists in the form of business or functional gains, such as access to new markets, sources of capital or credit, or a better-trained sales force. High business fit occurs in the long term when the combined firm improves its strategic position and competitive advantage in its industry or industries. Low business fit in the short term occurs when synergies either fail to materialize, or become more expensive than predicted. Low business fit in the long term occurs when strategic repositioning or performance does not result. Organizational fit. Organizational fit refers to how well the firms can be integrated to optimize their financial and business fit. Structural designs, major processes and operating systems, human resources, and cultural issues require sufficient organizational fit. The extent of the organizational integration needed depends on and varies by the financial and business characteristics of the combining firms. In general, the literature covers three broad areas on the impact of M&As. Each area differs in research questions, focal points or units of analysis, and/or specific research methodologies (Schweiger & Walsh, 1990). Financial analysts and economists are interested in firm financial performance and make assessments based on aggregate

66

stock market data. Industrial organization economists also are interested in firm performance, but they generally use product-market and accounting-based measures of performance for assessment. Scholars in organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and strategic management are interested in the management factors of M&As and how they affect individuals and groups within the combining firms. This is sometimes referred to as the human resources methodology (Schweiger & Walsh, 1990). When examining the impact of M&As on organizations, it is important to look at both the business and the human issues to get a complete picture (Buono & Bowditch, 1989). The Merger Syndrome Various studies have concluded that less than half of mergers and acquisitions actually produce their expected value and in many cases, value was actually destroyed (Akatcherian, 2001; Andrade, 2001; Bervovitch & Narayanan, 1993; Bernile, 2006; Browne & Rosengren, 1987; Feldman, 2000; Golbe & White, 1988; Goold & Campbell, 1998; Hogarty, 1970; Prokesch & Powell, 1985; Tetenbaum, 1999; Zollo & Meier, 2008). When this occurs, and the combination results in disappointing outcomes, it is known as the merger syndrome (Marks & Mirvis, 1998). Kusstatscher and Cooper (2005) contended that this failure is often due to underestimated human factors. There are many reasons for the high failure rate of mergers (fewer than 50% succeed; Cartwright & Cooper, 1996; Jemison & Sitkin, 1986). A paper presented by the British Institute of Management in 1986 (cited in Cartwright & Cooper, 1996, p. 8) identified 16 factors associated with unsuccessful M&As, and half were directly related to people and management issues: 1. Underestimating the difficulties of merging two cultures.

67

2. Underestimating the problems of skills transfer. 3. De-motivation of employees of acquired company. 4. Departure of key people in acquired company. 5. Too much energy devoted to doing the deal, not enough energy devoted to postacquisition planning and integration. 6. Decision making delayed by unclear responsibilities and post-acquisition conflicts. 7. Neglect of existing business due to the amount of attention paid to the acquired company. 8. Insufficient research about the acquired company. Hrebiniak (2005) cited the reasons that M&As fail as being due to poor planning, failed execution/implementation, poor integration, and poor change management. Clash of Cultures One of the most commonly cited reason for inadequate merger performance is the incompatibility and poor integration of organizational cultures (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1993). Buono and Bowditch (1989) contended that it is increasingly being recognized that organizational culture conflicts and clashes are an underlying determinant of merger and acquisition failure (p. 16). Cartwright and Cooper (1996) also noted that the collision of cultures can result in poor integration and performance. People who are proud of their organization and its culture can experience the loss, rejection, and stress that accompany such drastic change (Marks & Mirvis, 1998). Beliefs and values embodied in company culture must be substituted for a new way of organizational life. The task of coordinating and integrating different organizational

68

cultures is one of the most demanding, complex, and problematic aspects of mergers and acquisitions (Buono & Bowditch, 1989, p. 162). Thus, the task of building a shared culture within the merged organization is one of the biggest challenges for organizational leaders and members. Nahavandi and Malekzadeh (1993) argued that the low success rate of mergers indicates that there is a lack of understanding of what needs to be done to make the merger successful. One area that needs more attention is culture and cultural factors during the various stages of a merger. Managing Mergers and Acquisitions Marks and Mirvis (1998, p. 275) posited that five key areas require attention and resources over the course of managing M&As: 1. Strategy provides the blueprint for actions to be taken, decisions to be made, and the rationale for all activities associated with the combination. Constant attention should be placed on strategic goals during the combination. 2. Organization includes the focus on due diligence, cultural assessment, communication strategies, and organizational structure, in which the management must come together and integrate and develop the combined new organization. 3. People must be prepared psychologically for the combination. This preparation includes educating people on the realities of the merger, the reasons for the merger, what to expect from the merger, and the changes that are to be implemented. 4. Culture and cultural differences should be taken into account to build a new, combined organizational culture. Culture is what holds things together and creates loyalty and a sense of community.

69

5. Transition management includes all the activities associated with the implementation, including plans for communication, training, retention, layoff policies, and others. Summary The literature on for-profit business sector mergers shows that the main reason organizations combine is to attain strategic goals more quickly and inexpensively than if the company acts on its own (Marks & Mirvis, 1998, p. 6). Marks and Mirvis termed it a productive combination when post-combination achieves the desired strategic and financial objectives. It is important to note, however, that the success of a merger or acquisition is subjective (Buono & Bowditch, 1989). Creating a productive combination depends upon learning how to convert theoretical synergies into real gains, how to help people respond to stressful situations, and how to manage change and ambiguity (Marks & Mirvis, 1998). A merger or acquisition is a ripe opportunity for organizational learningthe ability to gain insight from experience (Marks & Mirvis, 1998, p. 267). This allows the organizations to examine their overall strategy in relation to what is learned and incorporate new learning into their current and future combination activities (Marks & Mirvis, 1998, p. 267). Thus, the essence of a productive combination is acknowledging the challenge of merging complex organizations, learning from the missteps while capitalizing on the opportunities, and building a productive gain to create both short-term benefits and longterm organizational effectiveness.

70

Non-profit Mergers and Acquisitions The literature on M&As in the non-profit sector is somewhat scarce compared to that of the for-profit sector. However, there has been a proliferation of mergers for nonprofit organizations (Cripps & Carter, 2006). Many nonprofit organizations have the same motives for merging as for-profits: to improve their organizational state. Reasons for Merging Non-profit mergers tend to favor mergers driven by common missions rather than merely the financial bottom line, unlike most for-profit mergers. The rationale of a nonprofit merger is to ensure that resources are applied toward the organizational mission (McCormick, 2001). This is commonly referred to as stewardship. Wernet and Jones (1992) believe that the difference between for-profit and non-profit M&As centers on purpose. Non-profit organizations have a responsibility not found in the for-profit sector: to fulfill a mission or purpose, often funded by charitable donations, rather than returning a profit on the service they provide. Stewardship versus profitability. The pursuit of profit is measurable, concrete, and explicably practical. It can be attained in any number of ways. It can be easily communicated to a wide range of people inside or outside the organization, and it is the subject of a rich body of analyses and recommendations. Pursuing profit develops a focus on competitive and regulatory realities. Non-profit organizations, however, are not expected to play such an explicit economic role. Rather, they are expected to be fiduciaries: set up to receive, hold, and manage assets intended to be used for some form of public purpose or benefit

71

(McLaughlin, 1996). Non-profits are seen as the stewards of public assets and trust. As such, their goal is to finance their missions, not achieve profitability. Despite the obvious and well-documented flaws, profit can have a powerfully unifying effect. Business partners and associates in a profitable enterprise usually can set aside personal differences enough to capitalize on their success. Non-profit organizations, however, generally see ideas and values as being more important than financial performance. Thus, there must be a unifying agreement that goes beyond the bottom-line when considering a non-profit merger. Strategic motivations mix. La Piana (2000) contended that the motivations for a merger often come down to improving finances, accessing a larger skill set, and/or enhancing the organizations pursuit of its mission. He termed these the Strategic Motivations Mix (p. 24). To improve finances. A non-profit organization may decide to merge to avoid or forestall impending financial collapse, to improve an imbalanced cash flow, or to gain access to another groups investment capital. They also may wish to avert a real or projected competitive threat in the marketplace, or to achieve a leadership role in the marketplace. To gain access to a larger skill-set. A non-profit may seek specific opportunities to pool and share resources and strengths. This would help them to accumulate media attention, expand geographic limits, acquire outstanding or specialized staff, enhance programming, create a stronger board of directors, or gain access to donors (Guthrie, 2000).

72

To enhance the organizations pursuit of mission. A non-profit may want to merge with another organization to provide its community with a single entity that is capable of much more than either of the preceding organizations alone. Expanding or enhancing the organizations pursuit of its mission is, therefore, another common motivation for a non-profit merger. Mather (2000) stated that many non-profits merge for the same reason as for-profits: achieving the best value for money, competitiveness in the market place, and customer satisfaction. He further argued that the most common reasons charities look to merge are to: rationalize resources, prevent duplication and overlap, respond to financial pressures, and improve services. Much of the focus of the benefits of a merger is on reducing duplication and increasing efficiency (Mather, 2000). McCormick (2001) affirmed that an effective merger should provide the new entity with greater capacity to pursue its mission or purpose. Merging involves the risk of losing autonomy, identity, working culture and climate, or other characteristics of the organization (Golensky & Deruiter, 2003). A merger is not a solution or panacea to the problems experienced by many non-profit organizations. Some mergers might weaken the partners because of loss of historic identity or government relations due to reservations against or assumptions of a lessfocused program. Organizations also may wait until it is too late for a merger to rescue an agency in trouble. In other cases, tensions may arise during the merger process, which can continue, or even grow, leading to regrets over a merger. It is, therefore, vital to carefully consider the decision to merge. Cairns et al. (2003) claimed that the decision to merge may be the result of strategic choice, or it may be an unplanned reaction to perceived crisis (p. 4). Much of

73

the research on non-profit mergers concentrates on the latter as being a desperate attempt to survive in response to environmental pressures (Singer & Yankey, 1991) or as a strategy for dealing with an environment of uncertainty and scarce resources (Cairns et al., 2003, p. 4; Wernet & Jones, 1992). Other authors point to economic uncertainty (Schmid, 1995) or the influence of funding sources as an encouragement to merge (Cowin & Moore, 1996). Non-profit mergers can be viewed as opportunities for growth, more effective alignment of resources, and a demonstration of stewardship . . . the rebirth of an organization rather than the death of a mission (McCormick, 2001, p. 1). If the decision to merge has been made, the senior administration and volunteer leadership must equally understand the reasons for and processes of merging. McLaughlin (1998) stated that the best time to consider a merger is before it is necessary, in which the combined strengths can be used proactively rather than waiting until it is too late and crisis management must take control. Merger Phases La Piana (2001) asserted that there are three phases to a completed merger process. The first phase, negotiation, begins at the point where two or more organizations decide to explore the possibility of merging and subsequently pass board resolutions to begin negotiations. This phase ends when both (or all involved) boards vote either to move forward with the merger or to cease negotiations. The second phase, implementation, is the legal and practical process of bringing the merging organizations together. This involves hiring an attorney to review the proposed agreement, offering any needed advice with regard to the legal method of

74

implementation, and filing the necessary paperwork to make the merger official. The third phase, integration, is the most complex and time-consuming phase, which involves the integration of governance, management, staff, and systems. It can take several years to fully integrate merging organizations. Cairns et al. (2003) outlined a similar process for merging, adding two stages called decision-taking and planning. Decision-taking involves completing the initial consultation with key stakeholders and partners, reaching a consensus and formal agreement on a vision and model for the new organization, exploring seemingly potential problems (for example, who will fill the position of chief executive officer), as well as identifying timelines and action plans for subsequent stages. This stage concludes with the boards reaffirming their initial decision to proceed to a merger. Planning involves completing the formal strategic preparations for the merger, including due diligence and relevant transfer arrangements prior to the formal and final decision to merge. Implementation Time Frame The amount of time required for implementation depends on how the transaction is structured, as well as how much attention can be dedicated to moving the process forward. The legal implementation of a merger can take anywhere from one month to a year from the day the decision is made, so it is advisable to consult with an attorney, preferably one who specializes in non-profits (La Piana, 2000). It also is advisable to use a merger consultant or consultants who specialize in M&As to help guide and facilitate the implementation after the deal is signed (Hiland, 2003).

75

Cost of Mergers The cost of mergers is twofold because there are both human resource and direct monetary costs. Direct monetary costs include legal and consulting fees, audit fees, severance pay, relocation or moving expenses, new logo design and printing costs, and web page redesign; they also include any liabilities, such as accrued salaries owed to employees, taxes and penalties, retirement benefits, legal benefits, mortgages, and other related monetary costs. Human resource costs are more difficult to estimate, but the major factor involved is staff time (McCormick, 2001). Structure Two separate organizations will exist as one single or surviving corporation after the merger. Alternatively, a third corporation can be created if neither organization wishes to be dissolved (Crowther, 1994; McLaughlin, 1996). Successful Non-profit Merger Steps McLaughlin (1996) recommended seven steps to complete a successful non-profit merger: Step 1: Get to know your partner. The board of each organization should evaluate its reasons for considering the merger early in the decision-making process to resolve and avoid potentially problematic issues. The key focus should be on building strengths and minimizing or offsetting weaknesses. Step 2: Check the culture. The culture of non-profit organizations promotes and displays the values they uphold; accordingly, potential partners must understand and respect each others culture. This may include attitudes regarding change, risk,

76

autonomy, conservatism, philosophy, inclusiveness, reward systems, and decisionmaking, among many others. Step 3: Build trust. As stewards of public trust, non-profits exist to serve the missions and community to the best of their ability. Donors entrust non-profits with financial resources because they believe in the work in which the non-profits are engaged. Step 4: Structure the new entity. Structure facilitates the operation of the organization. The board and governance structure melds participating organizational goals and operational philosophies. Many considerations affect board structure, such as the boards optimal size, composition, terms of service, and types of committees, as well as the selection of board officers. McLaughlin (1996) states that the primary goal in reconfiguring the new board should be to unify the new board members of partner organizations into one, cohesive body. Step 5: Encourage acceptance through effective communication. McLaughlin (1996) pointed to two sources of resistance that can inhibit successful merger, which he called the two Es: ego and economics. Ego in this context refers to the amount of personal commitment and ownership that someone has in the success or failure of the organization; this includes values and ideologies. The lack of a compelling profit motive can make non-profits particularly susceptible to the forces of ego. Job security tends to be the major economic concern in both for-profit and non-profit organizations during the process of mergers. Non-profit mergers generally are not accompanied by job reductions like those of the for-profit sector, but, when necessary, they should be made as quickly and justly as possible to ease the employees fears (McLaughlin, 1996).

77

Step 6: Write a merger agreement. There is no universally accepted format for writing merger agreements, nor should there be. The merger agreement articulates in writing all the points that the merger committee and its subcommittees put forth. This agreement often can put into perspective what may have seemed like an impossible, abstract task, and serves to memorialize the intentions and full scope of the merger to all concerned parties. After the draft is complete, a lawyer should be consulted to review and fine-tune the document for final board approval. Step 7: Implement and evaluate the merger. The real completion of a merger lies in its implementation, or integration. The collective expectations that were documented at the beginning of the process become part of the management goals the board will set in the coming years. These compiled expectations will also provide a basis for evaluating the success of the merger (McLaughlin, 1996, p. 21). Although the function of implementation is primarily a staff responsibility, board support is imperative and determines the overall structure of programs, budgets, and staff. Evaluating the merger involves determining whether the merger actualized its expectations based on the mutually agreed-upon goals drafted when it was first being put together (Harris & Hutchison, 2001). Critical Success Factors Cairns et al. (2003, p. 6) depicted several factors critical to non-profit merger success: Purpose and Vision: These need to be clearly articulated and commonly understood to increase the chances of overcoming problems and achieving goals.

78

 The Business Case: The two (or more) organizations involved need to understand why the merger enables them to meet their respective objectives more effectively. This may include being able to demonstrate tangible benefits or greater financial strength that could, in turn, enable the merged organization to expand its services or meet other objectives. Leadership: This is essential at all the stages of merger. Key tasks include: being able to maintain and explain the vision of the new organization; finding solutions to difficult issues related to staffing, governance, organizational culture, and structure; and dealing with unanticipated problems. Strategic Planning: This includes an explicit plan with key aspects of the merger process as well as specific job descriptions and reporting relationships. Adaptation and Compromise: There must be a willingness to adapt and compromise in the pursuit of the desired long-term aims of merger; for example, issues such as organization name, key personnel, and board composition. Strategic and Organizational Fit: It is useful to consider how well-matched potential partners are in relation to issues like: their roots and ideology; governance; structure and decision-making processes; financial resources and funding base; organizational strategy; and use of technology. Management of Different Cultures: It is important to address differences in culture and working practices early rather than risking the growth of a divided organization. Resources: The cost of mergers should not be underestimated. It is vital that short- and long-term budgets be realistic and not over-ambitious. 79

 Recognizing Human Factors: In a feature particular to non-profit and voluntary sector, staff, trustees, and volunteers often make a great deal of personal investment in their organization and its mission. It is therefore especially important to take their concerns into account. Good Communication: Keep everyone informed and remind people of the purpose of the merger to minimize anxiety or conflicts that may arise. Evaluating the Process: It is important to reflect on the process, learn lessons, and consider what might be done differently on another occasion. Summary In many ways, there are more similarities than differences in reasons to merge by the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. Both often are pursued in response to immediate financial reasons or crisis (Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsey, 2001). In both sectors there is real, long-term strategic potential. The major difference is that there is no profit motive in the merging of non-profits. Many non-profit organizations are looking for new ways to cut costs without jeopardizing services (Strom, 2007). Merging with another organization is one strategy. Some organizations are merging with other groups to team up on fundraising efforts, combine administrative functions, or share equipment and office space (Panepento, 2008), while others merge with organizations with complementary services. Not all mergers make sense, and collaborating is not a guarantee to solving problems. The for-profit sector has been widely developed and documented, but the research on non-profit mergers is much more limited. This may be attributed to the higher rate and longer history of for-profit mergers compared to the non-profit sector, which has 80

been driven by economic factors and a declining pool of resources in recent years. There have been more anecdotal advice and recommendations than empirical evidence in the non-profit sector, although this is changing, and the field of non-profit mergers is receiving more attention and ready for exploration with respect to applied research. Because the for-profit sector has much more research and information available on mergers, and because many of the reasons that businesses and non-profit colleges and universities merge are the same or similar, administrators in higher education can learn from the business sector on issues such as a merger. The following section explores research conducted on mergers specific to higher education. Higher Education Mergers and Acquisitions The natural preference of institutions of higher education has historically been to strive for independence whenever possible (Martin & Samels, 1994). Despite this history of independence, higher education institutions were not immune to the merger virus of the late 20th century. Like corporate mergers, many higher education mergers were designed to build capacity, improve efficiency, and achieve economies of scale (Eastman & Lang, 2001). In this regard, the rationale behind higher education mergers is quite similar to that of the for-profit and non-profit sector. Research on mergers in higher education is also similar to the non-profit sector in that it falls far behind the for-profit business sector. Eastman and Lang (2001) stated that the literature is anecdotal in nature [and] theories of higher education merger remain underdeveloped (p. 9). Shirley and Peters (1976) further note that little is known about the organizational dynamics involved (p. 142). However, there appears to be more

81

research in the higher education sector than the general non-profit sector. The following section describes the literature that exists on higher education mergers. Definition of Higher Education Mergers There is no single definition for a college or university merger, and the term merger often is used to refer to many types of cooperative arrangements among higher education institutions, including consortia, federations, affiliations, and alliances (Eastman & Lang, 2001). Generically, college merger describes a broad range of agreements by which one or more institutions contract with one another to change the corporate control of one or both places. The term is often euphemized: unification, reconstruction, marriage. College merger resembles corporate merger only to the extent that colleges resemble business concerns. In the academic world, the term may be associated with the failure of Eisenhower College or the success of Case Western Reserve. Or with the type of instant merger mandated for the University of Massachusetts to meet state budgetary needs. Or with the lengthy integration mergers of the South. In understanding college merger it helps to think not of specific cases such as these, but of a continuum of legal relationships. For public institutions, merger may be mandated by the courts, legislature or state administration. For the private college, merger is [generally] voluntary, though often accompanied by strong financial argument. (Chambers, 1983a, p. 14) This study follows the definition given by Harman (2002), in which institutional mergers are defined as: an amalgamation of two or more separate institutions that surrender their legally and culturally independent identities in favor of a new joint identity under the control of a single governing body. All assets, liabilities and responsibilities of the former institutions, including the human elements, are transferred to the single new institution. (p. 94) This definition examines both managerial and cultural factors closely related to institutional, professional, and academic identities of the combined institutions and well serves the purpose of this study.

82

Types of Mergers The form of merger is likely to have a major influence on the character of the merger process, as well as the types of difficulties likely to be experienced, the structures that emerge, and the probability of success (Harman & Harman, 2003). Eastman and Lang (2001) described two types of mergers in the higher education sector that compare to the types of mergers classified in the for-profit sector: The first is a horizontal merger, which involves higher education institutions in the same field that provide similar offerings (e.g., a merger of two dental schools). The second is a vertical merger, which involves institutions that are in the same field but provide different offerings (e.g., a merger of a degree-granting engineering school with a college that trains engineering technologists). Harman and Harman (2003) also distinguished two main types of higher education mergers by whether they are the result of an institutional initiative (voluntary) or a government or other authorizing body sanction (involuntary). Generally, voluntary mergers have been more successful than involuntary or forced mergers, as the initiative to merge comes from the institution itself and not an external party or entity, such as the government (Fielden & Markham, 1997; Goedegebuure, 1992; Harman, 1986). In the U.S., private college and university mergers have been voluntary. Many have taken place between small, private, liberal arts colleges to achieve financial viability and/or avoid closure. In the public sector, there have been some state-directed involuntary mergers, the most common of which are community colleges that combine to form multiple sites, and state-wide colleges and universities to form multi-campus institutions or systems (Harman & Harman, 2003). For example, in 1971, the University

83

of Wisconsin system merged with the Wisconsin State University system to create one system, completing the process in 1974. In 1995, 21 Minnesota community colleges, 34 technical colleges, and 7 state universities were consolidated to create a new Minnesota State College and University system. In 2006, the Medical University of Ohio and the University of Toledo merged, becoming the third-largest public higher education institution in Ohio. Beginnings of a Merger: A Response to Growth and Change One response to the growth and change of the higher education sector was to build larger and more comprehensive institutions, with both large faculties and enrollments (Martin & Samels, 1994). Academic depth and diversity, economies of scale and management, and other ends were sought through these means (Martin & Samels, 1994, p. viii). An additional response, most notably in the public sector, was to create systems of campuses. An example of such a system is the University of California, once based solely in Berkeley. By 1988, the university had nine campuses, stretching from San Diego to Davis, with a total enrollment of 160,596 (Martin & Samels, 1994). A third response was the formation of consortia. In the last half of the 20th century, hundreds of colleges and universities banded together to create voluntary multicampus cooperatives, some of which have been highly specialized (Martin & Samels, 1994). Five Colleges, Inc. in Massachusetts, (which is made up of Amherst College, the University of Massachusetts, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College, and Smith College) is a prime example of such an arrangement. These five institutions have opened

84

their resources to each other without compromising their individual identities (Martin & Samels, 1994). A fourth response has been mergers, of which some of the most prominent institutions have taken part, such as Carnegie Mellon University and Case Western Reserve University. Mergers have occurred and are now occurring among a surprising number of institutions of differing size and prominence, some private and some public (Martin & Samels, 1994, p. ix). Historical Patterns of Merger Activity There have been more than 150 mergers from 1979 to 2002 (Weisbrod et al., 2008, p. 42). Unlike the for-profit sector, which has experienced much of its merger activity in waves or movements, higher education mergers tend to vary by individual institutions. In some cases, multiple university mergers have occurred in the same time period or year, but it is not known whether there was some unifying force or it was just pure coincidence. Forms of Institutional Merger Chambers (1983b) depicted several models of the college merger with respect to the time periods of the 1970s and 1980s. Although laws that govern mergers vary from state to state, merger attempts in the 1970s followed four basic patterns: consolidation, dissolution/acquisition, interlocking boards, and a form which resembles a holding company. Consolidation mergers passed all assets and liabilities of two or more institutions to a new successor. Consolidation was not the most flexible form, as it perpetuated all interests of the combining institutions while sacrificing both of their corporate identities. Dissolution or acquisition mergers required one (or more) institution

85

to dissolve and pass its assets and liabilities to the successor institution. This form allowed for the perpetuation of the interests and identity of the successor institution at the expense of the other(s). The need for greater flexibility and continuity for both (or all) institutions involved gave rise to two other, rarer forms of mergers. The interlocking boards elected trustees of one board to trusteeship of the other, or a separate holding company was established to control the existing institutions, which could be contracted within the confines of state law. The models of the 1980s were based on collaboration as opposed to domination. The objective was to seek mechanisms that ensured equal standing and avoided compromising institutions historical identities. As such, collaborative models of consortia and federation took place during this period. Recent Trend Toward Mergers There are approximately six to eight college or university mergers each year (Martin & Samels, 1994). Strosnider (1998) predicted that merger activity will accelerate due to factors such as rising costs and competition. Jaschik (2008) noted that many institutions will be forced to merge or acquire if they are going to survive and argued that higher education has always been in a degree of flux, (p. 2), so the topic of future merger activity remains contested. Zemsky, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and CEO of the Learning Alliance for Higher Education, through which he advises many colleges on strategy, predicted two kinds of merger drivers that are likely to increase: an increased rate of failures for small cash-poor colleges, and mutual-growth mergers as a strategy to grow and improve or diversify offerings (Jaschik, 2008).

86

Mergers in the Public Sector Many mergers have been initiated in the public higher education sector by state legislatures, chief executive officers, and system-wide coordinating boards (Martin & Samels, 1994). Mergers of universities, state colleges, and community colleges have been implemented in Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin (Martin & Samels, 1994). In Arkansas, the Department of Higher Education implemented four mergers in 1991 between institutions in the 24 state vocational technical schools and the 19 technical and community colleges in the state system, as well as created 10 technical colleges to improve student access (Martin & Samels, 1994). In New Jersey, Camden County College partnered with Glassboro State College (now Rowan College) in 1991 and opened a new campus facility, named the Camden City Center, which has since become the site for a joint academic program that provides students in Camden City and surrounding areas access to associate and bachelor degree programs (Martin & Samels, 1994). A similar model was launched at Michigan Macomb Community College in the fall of 1991, which partnered with Wayne State University, Walsh College, Oakland and Central Michigan Universities, and the University of Detroit Mercy to offer bachelor programs on the community college campus as a way to increase access for students without having to transfer to another campus (Martin & Samels, 1994). The Oklahoma Board of Regents approved a consolidation of three 2-year collegesOklahoma City Community College, Redlands Community College, and Oklahoma State University Technical Branchto improve coordination and eliminate

87

duplication, yet allow each institution to retain its individual identity (Martin & Samels, 1994). In 1988, the state assembly voted to merge the five campuses of the University of Maryland with the other six campuses of the state college and university systems, including the University of Baltimore. The merger was requested by the Baltimore business community as a way to provide continuing education opportunities for employees (Martin & Samels, 1994). In 1990, the Kansas state legislature approved the merger of the Kansas College of Technology in Salina and the Kansas State University in Manhattan, which allowed them to streamline administration and combine institutional course offerings and improve their academic reputation in the region (Martin & Samels, 1994). In 1991, Portland State University, Clark College, and Mt. Hood, Clackamas, and Portland community colleges received a three-year joint grant titled Fund for Improvement of Post Secondary Education from the U.S. Department of Education. This grant enabled faculty to engage in a collaborative effort of sharing methodologies, objectives, research, and resources in the disciplines of British literature, chemistry, and American history (Martin & Samels, 1994). Significant Mergers in the U.S. Private Sector The impetus for merging often follows from fiscal constraints within the U.S. public system and abroad. However, this aspect has not been the only factor that has influenced mergers, particularly in the private sector. Across the country, recent private higher education merger activity has been impelled by a recognition of complementary missions and the legitimate need to preserve strength and competitiveness (Martin & Samels, 1994, p. 9). In the early 1980s, Widener University in Pennsylvania merged with

88

two Delaware institutions, the Delaware Law School and Brandywine College, to create a national, comprehensive university. The enrollment increased from 5,000 to 9,000 students, and the budget rose from $7 million to over $70 million (Martin & Samels, 1994). Since then, the university also has merged with a doctoral program in clinical psychology at Hahnemann Hospital in Philadelphia (Martin & Samels, 1994). In 1987, Tift College in Forsyth, Georgia, merged with Mercer University in Macon with a foundational principle being that the new institution would preserve the identity and commitment of Tift in both womens and teacher education in perpetuity (Martin & Samels, 1994, p. 10). In 1989, Iona College in New Rochelle, New York, consolidated with Elizabeth Seton College in North Yonkers to form one institution on two campuses (Martin & Samels, 1994, p. 10). This allowed the combined institution to capitalize on Setons strength in nursing and communications while building on Iona Colleges recognition (Martin & Samels, 1994). Also in 1989, Gannon University, a coeducational, 2,400-student university in Erie, Pennsylvania, merged with Villa Maria College, a 600-student Catholic womens college known for strong programs in nursing and education as well as for addressing the special needs of women beyond traditional college age. (Martin & Samels, 1994, p. 10) Both institutions have since developed a number of complementary programs to enhance their original missions and the mission of their combined university (Martin & Samels, 1994). The University of Detroit and Mercy College of Detroit agreed to merge in 1990 to become the largest Catholic comprehensive university in Michigan. The two institutions had similar missions and competed for the same pool of students. When the

89

two schools merged, they were able to combine their recruiting and marketing capabilities in a synergetic fashion. In its first year, the combined university had an increased budget of $72 million and student enrollments of 7,850 (Martin & Samels, 1994). The International Merger Context The growth of mergers in higher education is truly an international phenomenon. Many systems of higher education in other countries, particularly in Europe, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Japan, and China, are public- and government-run systems (Association for the Study of Higher Education 2009). Public/government-initiated mergers are employed for the same reason that the U.S. public sector (and perhaps private sector) executes mergers: to realize economies of scale through increased size, streamline administration of programs and services, eliminate duplication, improve efficiency, broaden access, and coordinate and combine complementary programs through consolidation (Dahl & Skodvin, 2002; Harman & Harman, 2003). In Australia, there has been a massive effort to reorganize the nationallysupported system of higher education since the 1980s by consolidating community colleges with four-year institutions (Martin & Samels, 1994). In Norway, efforts are being made to reduce the number of small, specialized colleges by combining them to create large multipurpose and multidisciplinary institutions. In South Africa, merger efforts included creating a coordinated system of higher education that purposely dissolves the racial inequalities that exist among institutions (Sehoole, 2005, p. 164). Another motivation is the need to incorporate the South African higher education system within fast-changing technology-driven and information-based economies

90

described under the rubric of globalization (Sehoole, 2005, p. 164). Other places where widespread merger and consolidation efforts are taking place include Great Britain, Ireland, Russia, Denmark, and Finland. As demonstrated, the main purpose for international higher education system mergers is to create economies of scale by increasing cost efficiencies, keeping up with changing sociopolitical and economic demand, and improving the quality of academic and administrative functions and services. One of the first empirical analytic studies on higher education mergers was conducted by Peters in 1977. He compiled 31 responses from questionnaires sent to chief executives of 50 institutions. He used descriptive statistics to analyze responses on the perceived success of a merger. His variables for measurement included academic size and public/private status, but he concluded that these were not good explanatory variables for a merger process or success. Chambers (1986) is one of the nations few and highly regarded college merger specialists, and she is considered a pioneer in the field. When Chambers entered the field of mergers in 1978, she discovered that almost no literature, no definitions, no theory; [and] very few records existed, not even a comprehensive list. College merger, for all practical purposes, was a nonsubject. Yet institutions were finding themselves in sudden need of information and guidance when the possibility of merger loomed. (Chambers, 1983a, p. 16) In her dissertation, Chambers (1986) introduced a model that she called Economic Theory of Merger Choice to predict merger behavior in the private, non-profit higher education sector. The variables employed were feasibility, uncertainty, growth of

91

mission, reputation, and managerial and academic efficiency. The model described necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, conditions for voluntary mergers. Millett (1976) conducted 10 case studies of institutional mergers (and three cases of closures). He came to find that, in most of the cases, the major factor in initiating a merger was a direct result of financial conditions. In five instances, financial stringency was the immediate, underlying cause for a merger. Other factors that drove mergers included close geographic proximity, extensive cooperative arrangements, the need to establish coeducation, the desire to couple complementary programs, and the wish to enhance academic reputations, political interests, and potential financial benefits. Institutions represented in the study include comprehensive, liberal arts, nonsectarian, sectarian, single sex, and technical colleges and universities. Individual colleges and universities merge for their own particular reasons. After analyzing 18 case studies, Mulvey (1993) identified financial exigency in the private sector and public policy issues in the public sector as the primary reasons for mergers. Shirley and Peters (1976) also noted that institutions use a merger as a means for reducing administrative overhead and instructional costs. ONeil and Barnett (1980) also claimed that the central reason for merger is financial distress. Finances Most studies cite the reason for mergers in higher education as financial exigency. Cheit (1971) further explained the general reasons for institutions being under financial distress as: rapidly rising costs, growing demand, and a declining rate of income growth. The five main components to the cost side of the problem are: (a) the effects of inflation; (b) rising faculty salaries; (c) rising student aid; (d) campus disturbances, theft, and

92

destruction of property; and (e) growth in responsibilities, activities, and aspirations (Cheit, 1971). Cheit stressed that these factors are not mutually exclusive and that some of these factors, such as growth, are residual. Rising educational demand and aspirations to expand such activities as research and scholarship have collided with financial constraints (Massy, 1996). Benezet (1983) identified enrollment decline as a contributing factor in institutions that are enrollment or tuition driven. Shirley and Peters (1976) indicated rising costs and diminished philanthropic support, while Wyatt (1998) referred to decreased state and federal funding as a major driver. Wheeler (1981) posited that poor oversight, inadequate cost data, and lack of adaptability to changing external conditions from poor strategic planning are some of the main financial problems that colleges and universities confront. College and University Closures In Milletts (1976) study of college closings and mergers, five colleges closed because their financial circumstances did not permit continued operation. The major reasons were: they were largely dependent on tuition as their main source of revenue, and decreased enrollment led to operational deficit; they were unsuccessful in their fundraising efforts; and/or they had an unsuccessful or incapable management/administration in place. Financially Stressed Colleges and Universities As stated previously, mergers often take place between financially stressed colleges and universities. Martin and Samels (2009) defined a stressed college or university as an institution that is dependent on either tuition or state appropriations,

93

smaller than it should be or needs to be, and lacking in name-brand recognition. The schools enrollment, endowment, gifts, and grants have been flat, at best, for several years, and most, if not all, long-range planning efforts address subsistence rather than sustained growth. In their study of financially stressed institutions, Martin and Samels (2009) noted some signals of stressed institutions, including (a) tuition discounting of more than 35%; (b) tuition dependence of more than 85%; (c) debt service of more than 10%; (d) less than a three-to-one ratio between endowment and operating budget; (e) student default rates above 5%; (f) average tuition increases greater than 8 % for five years; (g) deferred maintenance at least 40% unfunded; (h) short-term bridge financing required in the final quarter of each fiscal year; (i) less than 10% of operating budget dedicated to technology; (j) average alumni gifts of less than $75 and fewer than 20% who give annually; (k) institutional enrollment of 1,000 students or fewer; (l) conversion yield of 20% behind that of primary competitors; (m) institution on probation, warning, or financial watch with a regional accreditor or a specialty degree licensor; (n) a majority of faculty who do not hold terminal degrees; and (o) an average age of full-time faculty of 58 or higher. Martin and Samels (2009) named four suggestions for presidents and persons who lead stressed institutions: 1. Focus on missions before admissions: The old method was to tell the university community to manage lean and live with less, but a more beneficial method would be to rethink the mission and resize the institution based on the mutualgrowth model.

94

2. Spend only what the mission allows: The old method was to poll the cabinet and other departments for givebacks unrelated to the mission, but a simpler method is to spend only what the new or revised mission allows. 3. Learn the new language of money: This entails learning the intricacies of the finances to diversify institutional revenue streams and reduce tuition dependence by increasing gifts, grants, and contracts, thereby building a web of leverage. 4. Get ahead of students: Instead of following the trends, get ahead of the curve by shaping lifelong customers. The Dynamics of Size and Specialization Several studies have observed that the smaller institution is usually under financial distress in mergers between institutions of different sizes (Chambers, 1983b; Goedegebuure, 1992; Millett, 1976; Payne, 2008). The reason for this is because economies of scale tend to favor larger institutions (Brinkman & Leslie, 1986; Goodlad, 1983). Some of the worlds largest universities are federations, such as the University of London and the University of Toronto. An unfavorable relationship between institutional size and unit costs exists, in which unit costs are generally higher in smaller institutions (Lang, 2002). Public institutions, especially in North America, often are funded under formulas sensitive to enrollment. This can be a problem for smaller and more specialized institutions, which may result in uneven cost structures that enrollment-sensitive funding formulas fail to recognize (Lang, 2002). Given the financial dynamics of size and specialization, it is not unusual for smaller and more specialized institutions, as participants, to perceive mergers differently than their larger, more comprehensive partners (Grassmuck, 1991).

95

The Mutual-growth Model Martin and Samels (1994) advocate a mutual-growth approach to merger. This model requires a proactive approach to planning as well as a commitment to mission review and creative thinking (Harman & Harman, 2008). Martin and Samels (1994) state that, for this model to be truly effective, planning and articulation must go beyond a repositioning strategy. It requires an expanded institutional identity within a new category of colleges and universities (Martin & Samels, 1994, p. 12). They proposed that this can be achieved by enhancing complementary institutional missions and envisioning a combined, new identity. A proactive, mutual growth merger does not mean that both institutions remain unchanged. Rather, it challenges the administration of the new entity to explore further growth and expansion opportunities through the new mission and identity of the new institution. The new institution should be able to grow and develop under this new plan of vision, as opposed to marketing to the same consumer bases as it had before (Martin & Samels, 1994). Advantages and Disadvantages of Mergers A merger can be an attractive strategy, especially for a small, struggling college or university, because a partnership with a stronger institution appears to be a reasonable way for a board of trustees to fulfill its fiduciary responsibilities and provide continuity of education to students and employment to faculty and staff. However, the reality of a merger may turn out to be less attractive than surface appearances presume (ONeil & Barnett, 1980). In some cases, a merger has all the advantages described. Successful combinations include Case University and Western Reserve University, the takeover of

96

Briarcliff College by Pace University, and the creation of the University of Missouri of Kansas City. Nevertheless, there are cases where the decision to merge was a poor one, or the merge did not go exactly as expected by the faculty and staff (Hart, 2005; Lang, 2003; Locke, 2007; Monck, 2006; Neave, 1985; Patterson, 2000; Stewart, 2003). The Newton College of the Sacred Heart-Boston College merger and the Miami University (OH)-Western College merger are examples of such instances (Millett, 1976). On occasion, the proposed merger is never accomplished, as was the case with the merger of Dominican College of Blauvelt and Saint Thomas Aquinas College in New York (Millett, 1976). There are also instances of a proposed mergers being rejected. Dropsie University in Philadelphia could not find a partner for a merger that would sustain Dropsies unique heritage and mission (Millett, 1976). Ladycliff College in New York closed before a merger with Iona College could be properly investigated (Millett, 1976). National-Louis University and Roosevelt University made the decision not to merge because it was believed to be too difficult to combine the traditions, values, academic programs and strategies of the universities into one institution (Roosevelt University and National-Louis University Decide Not to Merge, 2010). Consequences and Outcomes of Mergers Millett (1976) found that, among the consequences of mergers, three or four results appear to be evident. Mergers allowed for the payment of creditors where the financial exigency of one particular institution was a principal influence in driving the need for merger. Mergers also produced certain direct benefits to campus expansion, financial improvement, enrollment, and quality of educational programs. These

97

improvements, however, were not evenly distributed and realized by all, but varied by degrees in most of the cases studied. Millett (1976) stated: The process of merger is not simple. The advantages of merger must be clearly articulated, and even then these advantages cannot be expected to be acceptable to all faculty members . . . students . . . alumni . . . staff [and other constituents]. Merger is not a process calculated to make all participants happy. Yet it is also a process that results in the preservation of essential educational services and opportunities. (p. 51) Shirley and Peters (1976) noted areas of difficulties produced by a merger, which included achieving a balance between autonomy (for motivational purposes) and centralization (for efficiency purposes), alleviating anxieties of employees and stakeholders of the acquired institution, and developing adequate communicative mechanisms between geographically separate entities. The process by which institutions merge varies greatly from institution to institution, yet Eastman and Lang (2001) stated that mergers consist of two sets of generic steps. The first is for completing the process of the merger, and the second is for resolving substantive post-merger issues. There is no single, best approach to a merger because the angle of the approach depends on the context, which includes the relative size and power of the parties and the compatibility of the cultures, among other factors. The Future of Mergers in Higher Education It is difficult to define and measure the success of a merger. Various measures of post-merger success can be employed, although there is a lack of consensus on when a merger should be considered complete (Bengtsson, as cited in Eastman & Lang, 2001). There is also a lack of agreement on basic goals and the concept of institutional performance (Eastman & Lang, 2001; Skodvin, 1999). Outcomes may be interpreted in

98

different ways. For example, an increase in an institutions student/faculty ratio after a merger may be interpreted as evidence of increased improvement and efficiency to some but, to others, as evidence that instructional quality has declined (Eastman & Lang, 2001). Bugliarello and Urrows (1976) called for the need of a predictive index of probable success in merger situations, which should assign appropriate weight to factors such as governance, top and middle management, and finances for short-term survival. Thus, it is difficult to measure the success of mergers in the higher education sector because success is often defined by the viewer. Millett (1976) contemplated that it seems likely that financial stringency and the need to reduce costs per student are going to be major reasons for consideration of mergers in the future. Shirley and Peters (1976) stated, Given the relatively dim outlook for the financial viability of higher education, it may reasonably be assumed that this form of inter-institutional cooperation will occur more frequently in the future (p. 142). If this prospect holds true, the advantages of mergers deserve careful, further exploration in higher education (Eastman & Lang, 2001). Merger as a Response to External Environmental Turbulence Pressures will likely continue for greater efficiency (and quality) in the mass delivery of higher education (Eastman & Lang, 2001). Eastman and Lang claim that mergers tend to lead to more standardization and homogeneity in higher education; and, at some point, the drive for increased scale, breadth, and distribution decreases quality and diversity, though diversity and quality may be features that society does not want to give up. If that is the case, and if it can result in increased resources allocated to colleges and universities in some systems, the drive for mergers and other forms of combination

99

will likely decrease, and there may be a movement back toward autonomy on the continuum of inter-institutional linkages (Eastman & Lang, 2001). However, the likelihood of this situations occurring strongly depends on the mechanisms by which colleges and universities are funded and resources are reinvested. Eastman and Lang (2001) believe that one factor that unites the paradigms for merger is the argument that a merger is a response to developments in the external environment, also known as environmental turbulence (Ansoff & McDonnell, 1990). The environments in which higher education institutions operate today are changing rapidly and profoundly (Eastman & Lang, 2001, p. 253). To the extent that colleges and universities can anticipate those changes, a merger is a likely response. The extent that new modes and models of teaching and learning are initiated by non-traditional providers of higher education and replace traditional institutions is unknown. However, most agree that, in either case, colleges and universities will have to change to survive (Eastman & Lang, 2001; Ryan, 2001). Change Theory Many authors who deal with higher education mergers recognize the role that change plays in the implementation and aftermath of a merger (Cannon, 1983; McDaniel Johnson, 2007; Mulvey, 1993; Radtke, 1997; Reed, 1978; Rhea, 2004; Rozhon, 2008; Shirley & Peters, 1976; Steffen, 2008; Wan, 2008; White, 2003). Because a merger involves usually major change, it is a logical step to review literature on change theory as it relates to mergers.

100

Change in the Context of Mergers Change that occurs in the context of mergers takes place on two levels: 1. Macro Level: The impact on the overall educational environment as a whole; 2. Micro Level: Organizational level; affects the institution on a local level. Change invariably accompanies mergers; and there are those affected by the change, and those who are making the change, known as change agents (Fullan, 2007; Rowley & Sherman, 2001). Cannon (1983) also noted two further dimensions of change: changes that affect the individual and changes that are organization-wide, such as structural. Change in educational settings. The traditional education system was designed for a very different world than what exists today. The world has since become more complex, revolutionized, and transformational. The global economy, advancing technology, and social progress have evolved to a point where educational institutions need to adapt and move with the changes, or risk becoming obsolete. Change and the academy. Altbach (2005) stated, Historically, higher education has been slow to adopt changes. The university emerged during medieval times, [and] has not changed dramatically since then; in many ways, it reflects the past (Altbach, Berdahl, & Gumport, 2005, p. 415). However, The most stable fact about organizations, including schools and colleges, is that they change (Baldridge & D eal, 1983, p. 1). The people in the organization change, institutional purposes change, the relationship between the organization and its environment change, and technologies change. Whatever its scope, motivation, or result, change as a noun or verb is a major part of any modern organizations language (Baldridge & Deal, 1983, p. 2).

101

The idea that the university should not change over time may be important to some, but this will result in a university that is out of date, out of focus, and out of touch with reality and the rest of the world (Wilms & Zell, 2003). The academy would be serving its own best interests to make the changes necessary for survival. Institutional theory as it relates to change is based on the notion that institutions are open to change to advance institutional prestige, which commonly refers to the rankings placed on top colleges and universities to attract top-quality students, faculty, and resources, rather than an external environment that is driving the need for change (Rozhon, 2008). In many fields, the ability of educators and practitioners to adapt to rapid change is essential for sustained success. Disciplines in science and medicine, for example, mandate the necessity for up-to-date knowledge and practices. The same is becoming increasingly true in educational institutions in terms of their capabilities and managerial practices. Green and Jonas (1997) stated, Higher education has traditionally been at the forefront of strategic planning [and management] in developing theory, but not in practice (p. 5). This has been one of the main criticisms of higher education. It is removed from the practices and circumstances of the real world, yet it theorizes and teaches the practices that take place in the real world in a secluded institution, often euphemistically referred to as the ivory tower. As higher education enters a new era of accountability, it will need to prove itself by demonstrating, in practice, what it teaches, just as is done by other organizations. For the academy, this will require major organizational restructuring, as those in the institution who practice (the administration) are generally somewhat removed from those who teach (the faculty), which is a concept known as loose coupling (Weick,

102

1976). Thus, the university needs to both connect with the outside world and connect its teachings to its administration, or practice what we teach.

Rowley, Lujan, and Dolence (1997) stated: Today, change is not a choice for a college or university; it is a necessity. Students have changed, their needs have changed, business has changed, government has changed, as has the fabric of international life. Consequently, colleges and universities are being challenged, if not forced, into realigning their roles to fit this new age. (p. 18) This process of adaptation is generally referred to as strategic planning and management. Implementing Change At all levels of the educational system, incomplete implementation of innovations is more common than complete implementation (Nordvall, 1982, p. 40). There are many reasons for incomplete implementation of change. In many cases, it is an issue of resistance, loss of momentum, or lack of motivation. To prevent incomplete implementation, a change plan should be formulated to take into account possible barriers to complete implementation (Nordvall, 1982). It is important to note that change is a process, not an event, and that most changes in education can take 3 to 5 years (depending on the nature of the specific change) to implement (Hall & Hord, 2006). Another important principle regarding change is that an organization does not change until the individuals within it change. Successful change both starts and ends at the individual level (Hall & Hord, 2006). Speed of Change The degree to which organizations make life-altering change has been largely debated. Buono and Bowditch (1989) stated,

103

There is considerable disagreement about the rate and amount of change that should occur. Trying to push for change too quickly can generate resentment, dissatisfaction, and the loss of key personnel. The basic question that needs to be addressed is what actually constitutes too fast or too much change. (p. 15) The speed with which changes are implemented also depends on the type of organization that is undergoing change. For example, the management literature often recommends that companies implement changes in the beginning as quickly as possible; otherwise, employees may get anxious or suspicious that changes are not occurring fast enough and, thus, may feel that management is hiding something (Beckhard & Harris, 1977; Bengtsson, 1992; Bohlin et al., 2000; Bridges, 1991; Carleton & Lineberry, 2004). However, higher education institutions often resist drastic change, and some authors suggest gradual or incremental change strategies in colleges and universities (Bess, 1984; Birnbaum, 1988, 2001; Bosworth, 1992; Cai, 2006; Eckel & Kezar, 2002). There is a fine line between too much and not enough change. Lauer (2006) warned against the preference to make incremental changes, as these often fail due to lost momentum or uncertainty as to the nature of the intended real change yet to take place. At the same time, too much change all at once can be overwhelming and emotionally taxing (Lauer, 2006). Lauer stated that institutional change has to be tied to traditions and cultural traits of academic life (p. 167). Resistance to Change Selznick (1957) stated that, for organizational members, Administrative changes are difficult when individuals become habituated to and identified with long-established procedures and there is resistance to any change that threatens rewarding ties. A great deal in organizations is expended on a continuous effort to preserve the rational, technical, impersonal system against such counter-pressures. (p. 17)

104

Resistance to change is a prevalent topic in organizational literature. Ansoff and McDonnell (1990) defines resistance as a multifaceted phenomenon, which introduces anticipated delays, costs, and instabilities into the process of strategic change. [R]esistance is a natural manifestation of different rationalities, according to which groups and individuals interact with one another (p. 405). Ansoff and McDonnell posited that, during the change process, all of the following may occur: Procrastination and delays, triggering the process of change. Unforeseen implementation delays and inefficiencies, which slow down the change and make it more costly more than originally. Efforts within the organization to sabotage the change or to absorb it in the welter of other priorities. Because people in organizations strive for stability and seek to avoid possible harm, any focus on change is likely to be accompanied by resistance (Wasserman, Gallegos, & Ferdman, 2008, p. 187). This is an especially prevalent phenomenon in institutions of higher education, in which change tends to occur at a very gradual pace, because many faculty members spent most of, if not their entire careers at one college or university. There is, therefore, a natural tendency to protect what has been stable for them. Selznick (1957) found that, People feel a sense of personal loss; the identity of the group or community seems somehow to be violated; they bow to [change] reluctantly, with regret (p. 19). Resisting change, in turn, is a prevalent theme in the higher education literature. For faculty, Graduate training instills a loyalty to the discipline that [sometimes] inhibits receptivity to nontraditional approaches (Nordvall, 1982, p. 5). Nordvall stated that, 105

Certain features and values of higher education institutions exacerbate the general tendency to repulse new ideas (p. 6). The notion of resisting change is a behavioral, multifaceted phenomenon, by which people respond to the changes taking place around them. There can be many ways that people exhibit resistance, which can range from procrastination and delays to outspoken hostility and sabotage (Sullivan & Antoniou, 2006). Change implies loss, which is an emotional experience associated with stress and anxiety (Van Schoor, 2003, p. 3). Van Schoor commented that people resist change because they experience a loss of identity, belonging, meaning, and mastery. Ansoff and McDonnell (1990, p. 412) stated that the level of resistance to change is determined by: 1. The degree of discontinuity in the historical culture and power structure implied by the change. 2. The length of the period over which the change is introduced. 3. The threats/insecurities/loss of prestige/loss of power implied for key individuals. 4. The expected contribution by the change to the success/survival of the organization. 5. The strength of positive/negative loyalty toward the organization felt by the participants. 6. The strength of the cultural and power drives at the respective power centers. 7. Because of distorted perception, resistance will usually be higher than justified by the facts of the situation.

106

Johnson (1998) portrayed the idea that people can often be in denial about needing to change and can heavily resist changing, even if it is to their own detriment. The more important something is to them, the stronger they hold on to it. Levels of Change Many researchers and practitioners have specified that change occurs in organizations at three levels: structural, cultural, and behavioral (Holvino, Ferdman, & Merrill-Sands, 2004). Structural change affects the formal systems in an organization such as policies, procedures, and job descriptions. Cultural change affects the organizations basic assumptions, beliefs, and ideologies. Behavioral change affects behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions of individuals and groups. These three levels are where issues of resistance need to be addressed. The Change Process Lewins groundbreaking unfreezing-change-refreezing model was one of the first attempts to describe the change process (Zand & Sorensen, 1975). Schein, as cited in Zand and Sorenson (1975), further contributed to this model of change with the notion of cognitive redefinition. Fullan (2007) described change as being multidimensional and consisting of three phases. Phase I is variously labeled as an initiation, mobilization, or adoption phase and consists of the process that leads up to and includes a decision to adopt or proceed with change. Phase II is an implementation or initial-use phase and involves the first experiences of attempting to put an idea or reform into practice. Phase III is a continuation, incorporation, routinization, or institutionalization phase and refers to whether the change gets built in as an ongoing part of the system or disappears through attrition or discard.

107

Tichy and Sherman (1994) described the revolutionary change process that CEO Jack Welch used to transform General Electric. These authors stated that organizational change is a three-phase process. The first phase is known as the ending and is a disengagement from the past. The next phase of the change process is called the transition stage and is about organizational members disconnecting from the past and committing themselves to the future. The final phase of the change process is referred to as the new beginning, where members learn new routines and replace old ones. Change Agents Change agents are those who make change happen and those who are responsible for implementing the change. There are both internal and external change agents (Nordvall, 1982). An internal change agent is someone within the organization. This person can be useful in achieving change, as they are already familiar with the organization, its culture, and its members. In addition, some argue that a skillful insider can provide sustained and sensitive leadership that an outsider cannot match (Nordvall, 1982, p. 28). Some disadvantages of an internal change agent are that he or she may lack an objective viewpoint about the organization and bring with him or her a biased perspective. An external change agent is someone brought in from outside the organization, such as a consultant, to implement change. The advantages and disadvantages of using an external change agent tend to be the opposite of those for using an internal change agent. An outsider starts with no preexisting notions of the organization, which allows him or her to use an objective lens. In addition, persons within the organization have no previous experience with the outsider that may hinder his or her perceptions (Nordvall,

108

1982). Some of the disadvantages of using an external change agent may include the level of commitment of an outsider as well as the unpredictability of using a stranger, which may come as a threat to those internal to the organization (Nordvall, 1982). It has been recommended that both types of change agents be used when implementing drastic change (Nordvall, 1982). Other Key Individuals and Groups in the Change Process The other key individuals and groups within the organization also may be seen as change agents and, in many respects, can facilitate or hinder the change process (Nordvall, 1982). It is important that top administrators and officials, such as the president and vice-presidents, support and endorse the change, although their commitment does not guarantee that change will take place (Nordvall, 1982). Internal groups have been found to be the most effective change agents in organizations (Nordvall, 1982). Such groups can formalize their legitimacy by working with the central administration to obtain a direct link with the center of power (Nordvall, 1982). Overcoming Resistance Traditional models that describe overcoming resistance to change include topdown and bottom-up models (Van Schoor, 2003). Top-down decisions that attempt to influence the change process of a college or university are those that strictly follow lines of power and responsibility, starting at the board or president level (Rowley & Sherman, 2001). The top-down approach focuses on management control, rationality, and structure. Bottom-up change focuses on the social and political issues that exist in organizations (Van Schoor, 2003). In bottom-up models, environments are created in which individuals or departments adapt to change organically and at their own pace (Van

109

Schoor, 2003). Van Schoor proposed that top-down and bottom-up change actions be synchronized to result in a win-win solution, thereby giving change a chance to succeed. Consensus Change in a Shared-governance Environment When decision-making power is shared across the organization, it can be referred to as consensus. In colleges and universities, this is known as shared governance (Rowley & Sherman, 2001). Major decisions are presented to the entire community, and the various groups reach a consensus decision through discussion, analysis, and compromise. Change affects everyone in the organization, and everyone offers input when employing a consensus style of decision making. However, just as in a democratic election, some people may not be involved in the process (Rowley & Sherman, 2001). Ingredients of Successful Change Deal and Kennedy (1982) suggested specific ingredients for successful change: Position the organizational hero in charge of the process. Recognize a real threat from the outside. Provide transition training in new values and behavior patterns. Bring in people from the outside. Build tangible symbols of the new directions in which the organization is planning to go. Change Management Ansoff and McDonnell (1990) listed some steps that should be implemented in the beginning of the change process: 1. Minimize startup resistance. 2. Marshall a power base sufficient to give the change momentum and continuity. 110

3. Prepare a detailed plan for the change process which assigns responsibilities, resources, steps, and interactions through which the change will be carried out. 4. Design into the plan behavioral features that optimize the acceptance and support for the new strategies and capabilities. Ansoff and McDonnell (1990) also recommended conducting a resistance diagnosis before the change process is implemented to anticipate how people in the organization may react to the change. Ansoff and McDonnell further recommended building a supportive climate that eliminates misperceptions and exaggeration by explaining throughout the organization the need/opportunity and the beneficial consequence of the change to the organizations performance. Groups/individuals who are expected to resist will need special attention, but the entire organization should be informed of the changes. This will eliminate or reduce fears and anxieties by making clear to groups/individuals the positive/negative impact of the change on them. Lastly, a pro-change power base should be built, as follows: 1. To the extent possible within the available time, make changes in the power structure (in positions of authority), which will increase the power behind the change. 2. Form a coalition of those who will benefit from the change. In particular, seek to enlist the support of potential resisters. 3. Offer rewards for support of the change. 4. Neutralize key points of potential resistance through side bargains and rewards. Ansoff and McDonnell (1990) noted that behavioral features also must be built into the plan for change and recommended the following:

111

1. To the extent possible, exclude individuals/groups who will continue to resist the change from the process. 2. Include all individuals who will be involved in implementing the change in decision making. 3. Individuals responsible for the success of the implementation should be made responsible for making the corresponding decisions. 4. Spread the change over the longest possible time that is compatible with the urgency of the external developments. 5. If time permits, use the contagion approach: a. Start change with groups that are committed to the change. b. Reward and recognize them. c. After this initial success, spread the change to other units. 6. Do not assume that managers have the knowledge and skills in solving problems that are novel to them and build the necessary education and training programs into the plan. This will not only produce effective solutions but will relieve fears and anxieties and, thus, enhance acceptance. Ansoff and McDonnell (1990) concluded that the behavioral change process must be managed as follows: 1. Anticipate and monitor the sources of resistance during the change. 2. Marshall and use sufficient power to overcome resistance. 3. Provide participants in the process with necessary new knowledge, concepts, and problem-solving skills.

112

4. In addition to strategy projects, start projects that are targeted at transforming the culture and power structure. 5. Monitor and control parallel development of new strategy and new capabilities. If the strategy projects generate strong resistance, it may be necessary to temporarily stop and focus energies on gaining acceptance of the progress made thus far. 6. After the new strategy has been translated into new product/market positions, diagnose the state of capability. If, as is frequently the case, the capability is not yet fully developed, the capability projects must be continued until the new culture and power structure are supportive of the new strategy. Ansoff and McDonnell referred to this residual capability development as institutionalization of a change. 7. If the strategic shocks are going to repeat, the organization will need to go through a series of change management exercises. Hence, management must institutionalize an ongoing change process. This requires development of the following: a. Managers who are seekers or creators of change and skilled in charismatic leadership. b. Power shared by entrepreneurs, department heads, and creative and marketing managers. c. A change-seeking culture in which historical models of the world are uncertain. d. A high level of positive loyalty, along with an adventure-seeking spirit, throughout the organization.

113

Change Leadership Leadership is the key to effective change management (Rowley & Sherman, 2001). This includes not only presidential or administrative leadership, but also academic leadership, staff leadership, student leadership, and governing board leadership. Implementing change takes a campus from familiar territory to the unknown in many instances, and having campus-wide leadership that understands the importance of change, the method of change, and the likely results of change is critical for success (Rowley & Sherman, 2001). Schein (1992) stated that the critical roles of leadership in strategy formulation and implementation are: (a) to perceive accurately and in depth what is occurring in the environment; (b) to motivate the organization to change without creating unnecessary anxiety; (c) to provide a vision of how to change and in what direction; (d) to acknowledge uncertainty; (e) to embrace errors in the learning process as inevitable and desirable; and (f) to manage all of the phases of the change process. Many authors concur that leaders who create an environment of inclusion can be successful in overcoming resistance to change. Wasserman, Gallegos, and Ferdman (2008) note that a culture of inclusion recognizes, respects, values, and utilizes the talents and contributions of all the organizations people (p. 176). Collaboration and Cooperation In the midst of a merger, or other inter-institutional arrangement, collaboration and cooperation are often regarded as necessary components to implement change (Cannon, 1983; McDaniel Johnson, 2007; Steffen, 2008). However, it should not be assumed that collaboration is an automatic outgrowth of merger (Steffen, 2008, p. 36).

114

On the contrary, as the review of change theory literature suggests, mergers often lead to distrust, fear, and anxiety (Steffen, 2008). Nevertheless, collaboration is a critical component of the change process that occurs when people work together to achieve a common goal (Fullan, as cited in Steffen, 2008). Thayer-Bacon and Pack-Brown (1998) examined the problems and issues related to collaboration and found that people do not necessarily agree on what it means to collaborate. Many collaborative efforts are initiated through formal channels rather than developed naturally. Ineffective communication can stop collaborative efforts before they start. Collaborative efforts need structure to thrive. The use of employee evaluation and rewards based on individual merit can undermine collaboration. These authors provide recommendations for educators and supervisors to become better collaborators. These recommendations include enhancing peoples awareness to facilitate the process of getting to know and understand others, encouraging genuine and heightened efforts that allow people to get to know each other and develop trust and respect, and finding opportunities for people to meet and rewarding them for their efforts. Efforts in collaboration and cooperation also are dependent on many organizational factors, such as geographic proximity in working relations. Efforts to establish synergistic, positive, cooperative, and collaborative working relations in a working environment may fall short of expectations when the organization is geographically dispersed, such as in the case of a multi-campus university, which further adds to the complexity of merger. Concepts such as network theory or social network analysis may shed further light on this issue.

115

Cultural Approach to Change Change also represents an evolving process in which norms and values are developed over time (Dahl & Skodvin, 2002). This unique set of values and norms represents the organizations history and tradition, which members strive to preserve (Selznick, 1957). Baldridge and Deal (1983) stated, If anything in an organization is stable, its the culturethe values, symbols, and rituals of the workplace. The culture acts as a counterbalance to keep people, goals, and roles from changing too fast. The culture of educational organizations often acts as a brake to slow the momentum of changes in people, purposes, and structures. (p. 2) Culture serves as the conduit for change and provides the framework for continued use and acceptance. In fact, long-term change cannot take place outside the context of culture (Frost & Gillespie, 1998, p. 9). Thus, the success of change, and of a merger, depends to a large extent on the degree of integration between established traditions and cultural identities of the [institutions] (Dahl & Skodvin, 2002, p. 76). Applying an Organizational Culture Perspective Organizational culture is the most commonly cited reason for the problems related to merger integration and implementation (Buono & Bowditch, 1989; Cartwright & Cooper, 1996; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988, 1993; Schein, 1992; Trice & Beyer, 1993). Morgan (1998) stated, When we view organizations as cultures, we see them as mini-societies with their own distinctive values, ideologies, and beliefs. Like an iceberg, important dimensions of culture are always invisible, and what is easily seen can be relatively unimportant (p. 111).

116

Defining Culture Culture is an anthropological concept that refers to the shared and learned symbolic system of values, beliefs, and attitudes that shapes and influences peoples perception and behavior (Geerts, 1973). Schein (1992) formally defined culture as a pattern of shared basic assumptions that [a] group has learned as it solved problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 12). Schein (1999) also noted that culture is deep, broad, and stable. Alvesson (2002) stated, Culture is regarded as a more or less cohesive system of meanings and symbols, in terms of which social interaction takes place (p. 5). Smircich (1983) described culture as a social or normative glue that holds organizations together. Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) viewed culture as software of the mind or mental programming. Miller (2000) defined culture as the pattern of norms, values, beliefs, and attitudes that influence individual and group behavior within an organization [in which] culture provides the common thread for day-to-day activities and offers consistency in a turbulent environment (p. 22). Trice and Beyer (1993) define culture as a collective phenomenon that embodies peoples responses to the uncertainties and chaos that are inevitable in human experience. Organizational Culture Just as cultures are formed in societies, they also are formed in organizations and in organizational life. Cultures are a natural outgrowth of the social interactions that make up what we call organizations (Trice & Beyer, 1993, p. 2). The term

117

organizational culture was first introduced in the 1960s, but it was not a prevalent topic until the 1980s (Ashby, 2002). Pettigrew (1979) defined organizational culture as the system of publicly and collectively accepted meanings operating for a given group at a given time (p. 574). Three kinds of cultural manifestations that are frequently studied are forms, practices, and content themes (Martin, 1992). The most commonly studied cultural forms include rituals, stories, myths, heroes, jargon, and physical artifacts. Formal practices tend to be in written form, and the types studied by organizational cultural researchers include organizational structure and charts, task and job descriptions, technology, rules and procedures, and financial controls (Martin, 1992). Informal practices generally evolve through interaction and include unwritten norms, communication patterns, and operating procedures or protocols. Content themes, which may be implicit or explicit, are common concerns and assumptions held by organizational members that manifest in the companys forms and practices (Martin, 1992). Examples include corporate values or vision statements or the company-engrained importance of innovation or egalitarianism. Organizations have both subjective and objective cultures (Buono & Bowditch, 1989). Subjective organizational culture refers to the pattern of beliefs, assumptions, and expectations shared by organizational members and the groups distinct way of perceiving the organizations environment as well as its values, norms, and roles that exist outside the individual (Buono & Bowditch, 1989). Examples include organizational heroes (role models who personify the cultures values); myths and stories about the organization and its leadership; organizational taboos, rites, and rituals; and important symbolic locations and prideful extensions of the organization. Subjective organizational

118

culture, also termed managerial culture, includes the leadership styles and orientations of the managers as well as the mental frameworks, problem solving, and behavior that are influenced by the values supported by the organization. Objective organizational culture refers to the artifacts created by an organization that reflect its culture (Buono & Bowditch, 1989), including the physical settings of office locations and dcor, and the buildings. Both objective and subjective aspects of organizational culture are important for a full understanding of a particular organization. Subjective organizational culture, however, is more deeply rooted than objective organizational culture, which can be observed by outsiders of the organization. Objective culture may resemble organizational climate in that it can be measured, observed, or recorded. Subjective culture, by contrast, is concerned with the nature of beliefs and expectations regarding organizational life. Subjective organizational culture thus concerns a deeper level of understanding that cannot be perceived at the initial outset and is usually characterized by a long-term time perspective (Buono & Bowditch, 1989). It also should be noted that, The culture of an organization is difficult to assess objectively because it is grounded in the taken-for-granted, shared values and beliefs of individuals and groups in the organization (Sporn, 1996, p. 48). Problems in Defining Organizational Culture Alvesson (2002) described cultural phenomena as difficult to grasp and measure and therefore must be interpreted as: (a) related to history and tradition (b) a collective shared by members of groups (c) primarily ideational in character, having to do with meanings, understandings, beliefs, knowledge, and other intangibles, and (d) holistic, intersubjective, and emotional rather than strictly rational and analytical. Alvesson

119

stated, Cultural interpretation cannot be pressed into a formula or model. This kind of work calls for careful reflection and self-critique of ones own cultural bias (p. 15). Culture versus Climate Although the terms climate and culture often are used interchangeably, they are distinctly different concepts. Climate, compared to culture, is more concerned with current perceptions and attitudes rather than deeply held meanings, beliefs, and values (Peterson & Spencer, 1990, p. 7). The construct or concept of climate originated primarily from cognitive and social psychology and studies of organizational behavior. The major features of climate are that its primary emphasis is on common participant views of a wide array of organizational phenomena that allow for comparison among groups over time, that its focus is on current patterns of beliefs and behaviors, and that it is often transient or malleable in character (Peterson & Spencer, 1990). The study of climate in higher education settings has generally involved the design and development of instruments to measure student, faculty, and administrative views on institutional mission and goals, academic workplaces, organizational functioning, academic images and reputations, and student, faculty, and administrative environments (Peterson & Spencer, 1990). Culture and climate provide organizational members with a reflection of their understanding of the purpose and meaning of their organization and their work and provide a mechanism for attracting, selecting, socializing, and retaining new members. Research on organizational climate can be approached systematically and can include the use of qualitative methods, such as interviews, observations, focus groups, document content analysis, or quantitative approaches, such as fixed response

120

instruments, survey sampling, and statistical analysis (Peterson & Spencer, 1990). The primary approach used to study organizational culture includes the use of qualitative methods that involve ethnographically thick descriptions drawn from participant observation by the researcher, examination of institutional records and documents, and open-ended interviews (Peterson & Spencer, 1990; Schein; 1992). Acculturation Acculturation is an important aspect in organizational culture during the implementation of a merger or significant change. Nahavandi and Malekzadeh (1993) defined acculturation as the process by which two groups that have come in direct contact resolve the conflicts and problems that inevitably arise as a result of their contact (p. 59) and the changes that occur in both cultures as a result of the contact (p. 60). This concept is frequently used in cross-cultural psychology and anthropology as a means to explain how indigenous cultures adapt to colonial ones and is thus believed to be applicable to the organizational culture perspective, particularly during a merger or acquisition. Culture in Colleges and Universities Clark (1980) describes academic organizations as ideological systems in which four main types of cultures exist: (a) the culture of the discipline; (b) the culture of the profession; (c) the culture of the individual institution; and (d) the culture of the national system of higher education. Bergquist and Pawlak (2008) further explained the four cultures that exist in the academy. First, the collegial culture finds meaning primarily in the disciplines represented by the faculty of the institution who are responsible for the generation, interpretation, and dissemination of knowledge. This disciplinary orientation

121

places great value on faculty work directed toward disciplinary scholarship. The collegial culture also values faculty autonomy, shared governance, and academic freedom, which is one of the dominant norms. Collegial culture is a hybrid of the British, Scottish, and German university models. Second, there is the managerial culture, which finds meaning primarily in the institution, implementation, and evaluation of work that is directed toward specific goals and purposes. In this culture, the highest value is assigned at the instructional level, focusing on student learning outcomes. Administrators of these institutions are expected to be efficient and effective in managing people and money, and are expected to apply corporate management theory to the operation of the institution. Managerial culture originated in several types of postsecondary institutions in the U.S. and Canada, in Catholic colleges and universities and community colleges (Clark, 1980). Third, the development culture finds meaning primarily in the creation of programs and activities that further the personal and professional growth of all members of the higher education community. Faculty development, curriculum development, and long-term institutional planning are centered around the developmental culture. Rationality is particularly important (form follows from function), and the culture is both faculty-focused and student-focused. Intense attention is directed at students, and their specific needs require forms of institutional research aimed at quantifiable items such as finance, student enrollment, and resource allocation, as well as student learning and campus morale. Goals are directed at institutional mission clarification, strategic planning, and evaluation. Developmentalists also attempt to avoid the charismatic power that is common in the collegial culture and choose instead a more collaborative or

122

autonomous form of authority. Developmental leaders influence rather than control (Clark, 1980). Lastly, the advocacy/negotiating culture finds meaning primarily in the establishment of equitable and egalitarian policies and procedures for the distribution of resources and benefits to the institution. The advocacy/negotiating culture emerged in response to the inability of the managerial culture to meet the personal and financial needs of faculty and staff. Collective bargaining is used by faculty and sometimes staff to negotiate working conditions and institutional policies and practices (Clark, 1980). Bergquist (2008) identified two other recently developed cultures he calls the virtual culture and the tangible culture. The virtual culture, or invisible university, is a culture that finds meaning by answering the knowledge generation and dissemination capacity of the postmodern world that values the global perspective of open, shared, and responsive educational systems. This type of culture utilizes technology, networks, and the Internet with the use of online or distance education to meet the needs of the information age and knowledge economy and provides opportunities for nontraditional students. The tangible culture, or brick-and-mortar university is a culture that finds meaning in its roots, community, and spiritual grounding, and the traditional values of a face-to-face education on its own physical location/campus. The founding culture and core principles guide the institutional and academic mission; this kind of culture relies heavily on its strong sense of history and reputation. Clark (1998) proposed that colleges and universities embrace an entrepreneurial culture to respond to the growing turbulence between higher education and the environment, which, he believed, allows institutions to better control their own destinies.

123

Clark (1998) stated, An entrepreneurial achievement of distinctiveness serves internally to unify an identity and thereby rebuild a sense of community (p. 148). Kuh and Whitt (1988) noted four values that influence the academic institution: justice, competence, liberty, and loyalty. Some institutional values are conscious and made explicit to serve as a normative or moral function by guiding members responses to situations (Kuh & Whitt, 1988, p. 23). However, most institutional values are implicit and are expressed as themes such as academic freedom and traditional collegial governance. Faculty Culture The notion of faculty culture generally consists of two perspectives. First is the academic profession and shared values, such as academic freedom, individual autonomy, collegial governance, and the principle of seeking truth; second are the faculty subprofessions as characterized by fragmentation and specialization (Kuh & Whitt, 1988). The culture of the discipline is the primary source of faculty identity and expertise (Kuh & Whitt, 1988, p. v). Although faculty culture and values may vary by discipline, profession, and individual institution, some overarching values link faculty across the range of disciplines and institutions (Austin, 1990, p. 62). During the expansionist period of higher education between the mid-1950s and the mid-1970s, a dominant view of the academic profession rose (Austin, 1990). This image influenced the concept of faculty as well as the policies and practices (such as tenure and promotion policies) in colleges and universities and has become ingrained into the culture of many (perhaps even most) higher education institutions. Several values and beliefs prevailed to become important hallmarks of the academic profession and identity.

124

One of these key values is that the purpose of higher education is to discover, produce, and disseminate knowledge, truth, and understanding. Research, writing, publication, and instruction all became vehicles to enact this value. Second, autonomy and academic freedom in teaching and research became valued as the means to maintain quality and protect creative as well as controversial ideas. Peer review processes (in the disciplinary culture) and tenure (in the institutional culture) became the structures to protect autonomy and academic freedom (Austin, 1990). A third significant value of the academic profession is commitment to intellectual honesty and fairness (Austin, 1990). Collegiality became the ideal framework for faculty interactions as well as institutional decision making. Along with this value is a belief that the university or college is a community of scholars who work together to govern the institution (Austin, 1990, p. 62). Another distinctive value that unites the academic profession across disciplines and institutions is a commitment to service for society (Austin, 1990). A cultural element of the academic profession is the acceptance of various disciplines as the best organizing structure to facilitate the pursuit of knowledge, in which it is recognized that reputations are established through publications and involvement with national professional and scholarly associations, whereby there is an understanding that the reward system emphasizes specialization (Austin, 1990). During the 20th century, the institutional department became the main organizational structure in American colleges and universities, and the discipline became a major cultural underpinning for faculty (Austin, 1990). During this time period in the 20th century, higher education was known as a trust market, where colleges and universities were entrusted with delivering quality

125

education without question. In the past few decades, however, several issues have arisen to disrupt this trust market. First, society has become more scrutinizing, and people want proof of a return on their investment before investing. The rising price of tuition and costs associated with a college or university education have further escalated students demanding more for their money and a guarantee of a degree and perhaps job after graduation. Second, state and federal governments, which provided a large contribution in the higher education boom, now have less funding to give. In addition, the pressure has shifted to the providers of educations having to show cause for receiving such funding. Third, the large endowments and philanthropic support from citizens and the private sector have decreased dramatically for most non-profit institutions. Finally, the rising competition and costs associated with delivering a quality education, services and amenities, especially upgrades in technology and technology-based resources, have caused colleges and universities to allocate more of their budgets to these expenditures. For all of these reasons and more, depending on the individual institutional context and circumstances, the traditional faculty and institutional culture that were so prevalent in the 20th century are now feeling the pressure of the changing times. Student Culture Like faculty subcultures, student subcultures are created through interaction with peers, mediated to a certain extent by institutional structures and processes. Kuh and Whitt (1988) stated, Dominant student cultures exert a significant influence on the institutions culture (p. v).

126

Institutional Culture The culture of an institution as complex as a college or university is, according to Kuh and Whitt (1988), like peeling an onion. As one works through the layers of the onion, from the outer skin to the core, the layers differ in texture and thickness, and it is not always obvious where one layer ends and the next begins (Kuh & Whitt, 1988, p. 41). Kuh and Whitt described the culture of colleges and universities as being: subdivided, complicated, and enriched by the development of subcultures around common roles, tasks, and problems. Groups of students, faculty, and administrators develop common beliefs, values, solutions, and norms as well as systems of symbols, rituals, and socialization processes to maintain their groups. (p. 93) While research on culture in higher education is not new, its complex and elusive nature has limited attempts to study it comparatively. Culture, in any organization, is such a context-bound concept that Alvesson (2002) called for a more reflective concept of culture than what is common in most organization and management studies. He proposed using multiple cultural configurations that assume that organizations can best be understood in terms of the context of their local culture as well as utilizing a variety of diverse lenses, viewpoints, perspectives, interpretations, and insights. The concept of culture itself is multidisciplinary, and the mechanisms for studying it should be as well. Institutional Identity The issue of institutional identity has been a concern since the decline of the trust market, particularly to liberal arts, secular, faith-based, and religiously affiliated colleges and universities, which, according to Olin (2005), are suffering from an identity crisis with respect to the changing demands of a market-oriented and increasingly competitive higher education environment. McCaffery (2004) stated, The university can mean all

127

kinds of things in a mass system, yet it does not stand for anything in particular (p. 23). Therefore, transforming institutional identity requires transforming institutional culture (Olin, 2005). Some use the terms personality or character when referring to the institutional identity of an organization such as a college or university (Kuh, 1993). Kuh noted that identity, like culture, evolves over many years and consists of numerous elements or cultural properties, including institutional history, traditions, values, the aspirations and expertise of faculty and staff, areas of excellence or uniqueness of academic programs, formal and informal policies and practices, and the daily routines of institutional life. Mission, philosophy, and culture are the main components that comprise institutional identity (Kuh, 1993). These components are intricately intertwined and mutually dependent. That is, mission both influences and reflects a colleges culture and vice versa. The philosophy of a college springs from the vales and assumptions of the organizations culture (Kuh, 1993, p. 661). Margolis (1998) also suggested that institutional purpose and philosophy constitute organizational identity. Three primary ways in which higher education researchers have studied organizational identity include how to construct an identity, how to define an institutional saga, and how to enable the organization to adapt to the demands of the environment (Tierney, 1991b). The construction of organizational identity is influenced by founders and leaders (Pettigrew, 1979; Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988) as well as by hiring practices, employment, size, training, systems, celebrations, and personal experiences which can be affected and construed by internal and external images (Margolis, 1998). Organizational image can be projected into the future, which means organizational

128

members may have expected, ideal, and feared projections about what the organization will look like in the future (Margolis, 1998). Chawszczewski (1998) asserted, An institution needs to define itself as a community, which leads to an integrated experience leading to a firm institutional identity (p. 1). One of the benefits of a community is that it unites organizational members in a common purpose or vision, which can, in turn, create institutional loyalty and commitment. In addition to a sense of institutional community, a college must also have a clear educational purpose which illustrates the colleges commitment to its own history (Chawszczewski, 1998, p. 5). Scott and Lane (2000) stated that an enduring identity is a function of a community built on common values and norms, characterized by social relationships and commitments by which group members reinforce each others beliefs and participation. Rationalist conceptions of identity are shaped in three ways (Chawszczewski, 1998). First, the identity and essence of the organization is defined according to their differences from other organizations, which enables the organization to show continuity over time and socializes newcomers to the culture and history of the institution. Second, the organization must have a distinctive mission in which the institution distinguishes itself from comparable or competitor colleges and universities. This mission adapts and evolves as external forces exert pressure on the institution. Finally, the mission must avoid being too narrowly defined, as this will restrict its ability to adapt to environmental pressures. Some advocate that a clearly or tightly defined identity may enable consumers to choose the organization for its distinctiveness while other proponents prefer a loose identity to be able to be flexible (Tierney, 1991b). Olin (2005) posited that a major

129

strength of an institution is its ability to balance both management decisions and identity development, as well as the built in ability to weather the changes in higher education (p. 118). Therefore, it is important for an institution to develop a strong sense of identity. A strong sense of identity focuses efforts to maintain dynamic equilibrium in culture and directs organizational action, using strategy and leadership (Chaffee & Tierney, 1988). In effect, it ensures that everyone is on the same boat and they know where that boat is headed (Chaffee & Tierney, 1988, p. 188). Identity allows organizational members to learn how they can contribute to the organizations welfare and thereby achieve personal satisfaction and organizational rewards. Chaffee and Tierney also noted, When identity is clear and coherent, all who are involved with the organization have a star to navigate by in their efforts to contribute to the group. They see what the organization is and, with consistent strategic leadership, they see where the organization is headed. (p. 183) Margolis (1998) stated that a clear sense of identity is a reference point for an organization and a source of independence from the environment. It also strengthens support for and commitment to the organization; facilitates group cohesion, cooperation, altruism, and positive group evaluations; results in both loyalty and pride; promotes internalization of group values and norms; encourages similarity in attitudes and behavior; and reinforces the antecedents of identification. Organizational identity is reinforced when its members align their actions with the attributes of that identity. This can be accomplished through managing hiring practices, investment decisions, and policies.

130

Tierney (1991b) stated that an institutional saga is the strongest possible identity an organization may assume. The opportunity for creating a saga is most likely to occur at the inception of an organization, or when the institution is in a crisis (Tierney, 1991b, p. 38). Clark (1972) defined an organizational saga as a collective understanding of a unique accomplishment in a formally established group (p. 178). The groups definition of the accomplishment is communicated and institutionalized and links the stages of organizational development. In other words, An organizational saga presents some rational explanation of how certain means led to certain ends [and] also includes [an] affect that turns a formal place into a beloved institution, to which participants may be passionately devoted (Clark, 1972, p. 178). External observers may even sense an institutional spirit or spirit of the place. An organizational/institutional saga combines both a strong sense of identity and strong culture that, to members of the organization, make it a unique and special place that instills loyalty, commitment, and a sense of community, purpose, and pride. Much effort is put forth by organizational members, including students, faculty, alumni, and staff, to institutionalize the identity and culture of the organization in which they consider themselves personally responsible for upholding the image of the college (Clark, 1972, p. 182). Such examples of institutional sagas were illustrated by Clark (1970) as he chronicled the history of several small private colleges, including Antioch, Reed, and Swarthmore. These organizations all had very strong institutional identities and cultures, and members made a collective effort to preach the gospel of their institutions. Student subcultures were powerful mechanisms for carrying a developing saga from one

131

generation to another [and] the alumni strongly identified with a special organizational history as [did] the older faculty and administrators (Clark, 1972, p. 182). Clark noted that the saga is even more widely expressed as a generalized tradition in statues and ceremonies, written histories, and current catalogs (p. 182). What drives organizational members to this level of commitment is the perceived value of an institutions distinctiveness. It is the colleges unique and distinguishing features that attract its devoted citizens to maintain and uphold the values, mission, culture, ideology, myths, stories, symbols, and sagas so that these hallmarks of distinction continue into the future. For an institution in education to achieve and maintain its identity, a critical mass of active and committed people is necessary. These people support the mission and identity of the college (Devlin, 1998, p. 130). Management of Academic Culture Many academic institutions are confronting issues of survival as they become more financially stressed and are forced or pressured to dramatically change their nature of operation. A typical response to these issues has been to utilize operational and managerial practices used in the business sector, including mergers. Dill (1982) stated, The trend in the management of academic organizations is clearly towards the adoption of the tools of management originally developed in the business sector (p. 305). Dill noted that part of managing academic culture: requires insuring that the history of an institution or group is not forgotten, that it is rewritten, read and known, that individuals who embody that history in their lives are visible and active in the community, and that traditional ceremonies of the community are scrupulously maintained (p. 315).

132

In addition, Sporn (1996) stated, As universities confront the challenges of mass education or financial decline, the understanding and management of university culture can become vital (p. 43). Culture Change Part of the change involved in M&As requires changing the culture. Most of the literature regarding culture change is highly prescriptive in nature, and many authors have written books on how to approach, influence, shape, create, manage, reproduce, maintain, and change culture (Alvesson, 2002). Cartwright and Cooper (1996) recognized that there is no one best way to approach culture change, and any single approach is likely to be ineffective. They determined that an effective program for culture change should incorporate the following elements: An understanding of both cultures Unfreezing the existing culture(s) The presentation of a positive and realistic view of the future Wide-scale involvement of organizational members A realistic time-scale for change or integration A process for monitoring the progress and identifying problems before they escalate (Cartwright & Cooper, 1996, p. 133). Buono and Bowdtich (1989) noted, Culture change must be recognized as a time-consuming, evolutionary process that often entails political maneuvering, anxietyprovoking situations, conflicts and tensions, and the need for learning, adjustment, and flexibility (p. 192). Sathe and Davidson (2000) stated that organizational leaders and

133

managers must recognize that the culture change process is challenging and requires diligent and effective leadership. Cultural Leadership The underlying agent for culture change, as described in the literature, has been the use of cultural leadership. According to Marks and Mirvis (1998), Leadership must lay the foundation for culture change by articulating a desired cultural end state, building on the strengths of the current cultures, introducing new ways of doing things, and modeling desired behaviors and rewarding their adoption (p. 227). Many authors on culture and leadership recognize the direct relationship between the two concepts and point to leadership as a culture-influencing activity and vice versa (Alvesson, 2002; Schein, 1992). However, Alvesson (2002) noted, This does not mean that leadership creates or drastically changes culture, only that leadership is a cultural manifestation influencing other cultural manifestations, such as shared understandings of objectives, technologies, and environment (p. 105). Alvesson, therefore, sees leadership as taking place within a cultural context, in which a cultural understanding of leadership calls for appreciating local meaning (p. 114). Leadership is a cultural phenomenon. Culture change, to the extent that it is related to leadership at all, includes and brings about new forms of leadership. Leaders are normally better understood as transmitters than as masters of culture (Alvesson, 2002, p. 116). Leadership Theories Leadership has been written about and studied for at least 2,000 years. Much of its history emphasizes social control and is hierarchical in nature (Kezar et al., 2006). As

134

a result, several approaches to and theories of leadership have been developed over the long course of history. Trait theories attempted to identify personal traits or characteristics of leaders that contributed to their effectiveness (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Traits might include integrity, honesty, self-confidence, flexibility/adaptability, charisma, competence, motive, drive, ambition, intelligence, or experience (Kezar et al., 2006; Locke, 1991). Behavioral theories attempted to study leadership by identifying and examining certain sets of behaviors, roles, and tasks associated with leader behavior (e.g., initiating structure versus consideration, autocratic versus democratic, task oriented versus socioemotional, or production centered versus employee centered (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Behaviors tended to be generic and applicable to all types of leaders and organizations (Kezar et al., 2006). Theories of transactional and transformational leadership continue from this approach (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Behavioral or trait theories can include interpersonal abilities such as being open, empathetic and compassionate, to name a few (Bargh et al., 2000, p. 21). Gender also has been the subject of study on leadership. Briefly regarding gender as a leadership characteristic, Helgeson (1995) lists several attributes not restricted to, but often associated with, women: having an inclusive, empathic, nurturing communication style; being relational, collaborative, intuitive, and multi-tasking; sharing power, information, and decision making; being democratic, team-building, facilitating, flexible, interactive, and empowering; displaying creative thinking, problem-solving, and peacekeeping (seeking win-win approach); and possessing the ability to create shared purpose and community. Albino, Alliants former president, noted that, although the

135

styles of leadership exhibited by men and women and often by people of varying ethnic backgrounds may differ (1992), Research has shown that these differences are not necessarily relevant in terms of overall [organizational] performance (Albino, 2001, p. 234, italics added by author). Power and influence theories consider leadership in terms of the source and amount of power available to leaders and how leaders exercise that power (Kezar et al., 2006). In turn, The power of leaders is largely dependent on how they are perceived by others (Pfeffer, in Ensari & Murphy, 2003, p. 52). Reciprocal, or attribution, approaches to studying leadership emphasize followership as critical to success and focus on what followers think rather than on what leaders actually do (Trice & Beyer, 1993). A researcher using power and influence theories might study the ability of leaders to use persuasion to achieve desired organizational outcomes. A leaders ability to exert power and influence over individuals in addition to his or her ability to be perceived as charismatic largely depends on factors and variations regarding organizational culture as well as individual cultural differences (Ensari & Murphy, 2003). Contingency theories (such as Fiedlers contingency model, Hersey and Blanchards situational leadership model, Houses Path-Goal model, and Adairs Action Centered Leadership) emphasize the way situational factors, such as the group of followers involved or the external environment, affect leadership. Attention is focused on discovering the aspects of situations that determine effective leadership behaviors (Trice & Beyer, 1993). The style of leadership used and its effectiveness are, therefore, determined by situational factors. Contingency theorists in higher education explore

136

different organizational subsystems, including the bureaucratic, collegial, political, and symbolic decision-making processes (Kezar et al., 2006). Cognitive theories focus on the influence of cognitive processes, such as the leaders perception, to develop an understanding of leadership (Kezar et al., 2006). Cultural theories explore the importance of context for understanding leadership and emphasize interaction and symbolic functions of leaders (Kezar et al., 2006). A study of leadership using a cultural lens might examine a leaders use of rituals and traditions that inspire people to change. The difficulty in precisely defining leadership continues to remain a challenge. Various theories provide additional lenses, but there continues to be no agreed-upon definition of leadership (Kezar et al., 2006). Some authors argue that a genuine understanding of leadership requires a close examination of the context where leadership is taking place and, therefore, cannot be generalized with all-encompassing theories (Alvesson, 2002). From this notion, leadership is a highly interpreted phenomenon and cannot be viewed as a standardized conception of the subject matter (Alvesson, 2002, p. 95). Alvesson proposed using thick description (e.g., qualitative methods) to describe leadership; this is different from the majority of studies of leadership, which use traditional leadership theories and generalizing variables. Sergiovanni (1984) noted, Leadership within the cultural perspective takes on a more qualitative image. Perspectives are images of reality and not the truths in themselves (p. 10). Alvesson stated:

137

Thick descriptions devote attention to details and rely on powerful examples to develop insights. A thick understanding of leadership is not so much to develop very broad generalizations, but to say something of more relevance for a particular organization or [specific] kind of situation . . . It is important to be somewhat careful in imposing a particular definition of leadership and instead be open to the meanings ascribed to leadership by the natives. Interpreting the local meaning of leadership offers a route to an understanding of organizational culture. (p. 115) Changes in Concept of Leadership During the last few decades, the concept of leadership and what constitutes effective leadership have changed drastically (Graham & Robinson, 2002; Kezar et al., 2006). For some, the change is so dramatic they may no longer see this phenomenon as leadership (Kezar et al., 2006, p. 2). This change is illustrated through a variety of newly popularized leadership theories, including team-based leadership, organizational learning, emotional intelligence, servant leadership, and cultural and symbolic leadership, which are seen as more effective than the former command-and-control theories of the 1970s and 1980s (Goleman, 1998; Greenleaf, 1970; Kezar et al., 2006). New concepts of leadership now focus heavily on outcomes (e.g., results-based leadership), which takes into account not only leader attributes such as skills, abilities, values, motives, traits, behaviors, competencies, and styles, but also the bottom line-organizational performance (Ulrich, Zenger, & Smallwood, 1999). Collins (2001) discussed what he calls Level 5 leadership in his hierarchy of effective organizational leadership. He stated that Level 5 leaders are a blend of personal humility and professionalism and will put the organization first, before themselves and their ego. Neumann and Neumann (1999), in their study of college presidents, found that strategic leadership was directly related to the colleges bottom line, in which the

138

presidents strategic leadership style can play a significant role in determining the future success of a college or university. Changes in Higher Education Leadership Research The changes that have taken place with regard to the traditional notions of leadership also have made their way into the higher education literature. Kezar et al. (2006) noted, Earlier research focused primarily on the college president, but in the last 15 years, much of the research has focused on leaders throughout the institution: deans, department chairs, and directors. The notion of a more collaborative approach to the practice and study of leadership has clearly taken root in higher education. (p. 101) Kezar et al. (2006) additionally stated, Leadership studies have started to view people who do not hold positions of authority or power as being part of the leadership process (p. 102). Focus is now being placed on the leadership team as opposed to individuals working in isolation (Eckel, 1998). Cross (1998) also advocated for a teambased culture in higher education that uses an integrated and connected framework to support the values, mission, and vision of the institution as well as incorporating leadership, organizational support systems, and environmental factors that define the institutional culture. Kezar et al. (2006) stated that: Higher education research and practice have indeed experienced a revolution in the way leadership is conceptualized. No longer is the college president considered the sole leader on campus or the campus hierarchy as the place to look for change agents. Instead, both researchers and practitioners realize that leadership is a collective process that is found among many different individuals and groups and usually involves the works of teams and collaboration. (p. 135)

139

Role of the University President The office of the president has the most comprehensive vantage point, known as helicopter vision, of the board of trustees, faculty, students, administration, staff, alumni, and the world outside: Presidents are themselves members of most of these constituencies. It is this unique [position] that provides the advantage presidents have in thinking broadly and strategically. It is the responsibility of the president to think strategically, provide the best leadership for the institution, and provide a unique perspective on the whole institution that is essential to strategic planning. (Massy & Meyerson, 1992, p. 39) It has been noted that academic institutions are value-rational organizations with intangible outcomes, ambiguous and conflicting goals, and complicated decision making (Dressel, 1981; Satow, 1975; Sporn, 1996). Higher education institutions have been described as organized anarchies, garbage can models of organizational choice (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972), and loosely coupled systems (Weick, 1976). Therefore, the roles of academic management and leadership, and the office of the president also encounter and represent organizational ambiguities unique to academic institutions. Cohen and March (1986) noted that a college president faces four fundamental ambiguities: purpose, power, experience, and success: These ambiguities are fundamental to college presidents because they strike at the heart of the usual interpretations of leadership. When purpose is ambiguous, ordinary theories of decision making and intelligence become problematic. When power is ambiguous, ordinary theories of social order and control become problematic. When experience is ambiguous, ordinary theories of learning and adaptation become problematic. When success is ambiguous, ordinary theories of motivation and personal pleasure become problematic. (p. 195) Duderstadt (1997), the former president of the University of Michigan, stated, Successful university presidents must be well informed to the history, traditions, and

140

cultures of the institutions they are leading (p. 4). He stated that a president can play a key role in creating and defining an institutional saga. Keller (1983) indicated that the role of the president is to give direction to the institution and craft the strategies that make change happen. This also involves allocating resources and making the tough decisions that will support the strategy. Presidential Leadership A university president is called upon to provide many types of leadership: executive, academic, political, strategic, and moral (Duderstadt, 1997). Successful presidential leadership styles must be responsive to both the nature of the institution and the demands of the times. It is important that university presidents be capable of adapting their own leadership styles to fit the needs of the institution (Duderstadt, 1997, p. 107). Many studies have attempted to identify presidential leadership and its effectiveness. For example, Astin and Scherrei (1980) studied presidential leadership styles (The Bureaucrat, The Intellectual, The Egalitarian, and The Counselor). Lawrence (2006) argued that effective presidential leadership involves teamwork, engaging the entire institution in leadership responsibilities, intelligence, humility, integrity, and listening; and balancing the mission of the institution with the realities of the external environment, all while building diversity and access in and to higher education. Birnbaum (1992) stated that effective leadership involves high faculty support. Selznick (1957) attributed good leadership as being responsible, purposeful, and creative. Dressel (1981) determined: Good leadership avoids the use of formal authority and of official power whenever possible. It requires that the individual immerse himself or herself in any problem sufficiently to understand its complications and the implications of

141

various solutions before imposing the task or even the development of recommendations about it on an individual or committee. (p. 104) Others consider university presidential leadership a type of moral act that involves setting a vision for the institution and garnering support for that vision (Shapiro, 1998, p. 68). Duderstadt (1997) argued that the most effective university presidents are those capable of always setting institutional welfare above personal objectives or, at times, even professional survival. Decisions and actions must always be taken within the perspective of long-standing history and traditions of the university, and they must be taken not only for the benefit of those currently served by the institution, but on behalf of future generations. Farnsworth (2007) refers to this concept as service-centered leadership. McCaffery (2004) stated that effective presidential leadership involves both situational leadership and leading by example. Duderstadt (1997) believes that good leaders seek out the best people to do the job, give them the resources they need, and then get out of the way. Shapiro (1998) stated, Assembling a group of very intelligent people and adequate resources is important, but so is a vision that structures the overall effort in a manner designed to give greater meaning to the effort and to society (p. 95). Hesburgh (1977) noted, Effective leadership means getting the best people you can find to share the vision and help in achieving it (p. 4). ONeil (1993), former university president of the California School of Professional Psychology, asserted, [A leader], rather than imposing his or her ideas from the top down, should encourage the development of leadership qualities on many levels of the organization (p. 253).

142

Birnbaum (1992) stated: There are no quick fixes or magic bullets for presidential leadership in higher education. Ten-minute managers, pop psychologists, or charismatics with fixed ideas about what it takes to be a good college president need not apply. Good presidents come to their positions with useful competencies, integrity, faith in their colleagues, and a firm belief that by listening carefully and working together they can all do well. (p. 196) Future of Higher Education Higher education is on the brink of major change and reform. Demand for student aid is rising, costs are rising, tuition is rising (at three times the inflation rate), and few family income levels are keeping pace with these increases (Burke, 2009). Due to the state of the economy, the rates of return on endowments have declined, which is troublesome for many institutions that rely on this income as a major source of funding. Fundraising also will likely decrease in response to the economic climates donor fatigue. Many public institutions are facing serious budget cuts, and governmental and non-governmental grants and awards have become even more difficult to obtain. Smalland medium-sized private universities will perhaps take the biggest hit. Desmond (2009) stated, Americas undercapitalized independent colleges are staring at a spiral of major threats to solvency as penny-pinching students and parents consider cheaper options, and funding sources dry up. As a result, they could be the next bubble industry to pop (Desmond, 2009). Accrediting agencies, policymakers, and funding sources are increasingly requiring colleges and universities to base institutional performance on outcomes produced to justify their high cost, a concept relatively new to the academic community. The emergence of non-traditional and for-profit education providers, online universities,

143

and continuous advancing technologies have added to the mix of pressures that colleges and universities now face. In addition to these concerns, many of those in senior faculty, leadership, and administrative positions are on the verge of retirement, and higher education institutions will soon have a major human resource gap to fill. In addition, the tenure of university presidents in recent years has fallen to historically low levels (Martin & Samels, 2004). More than 300 new college and university presidents take office annually (Bensimon, 1990). Many perceive a leadership vacuum within the higher education community these days, since the tendency of governing boards to recruit presidents from the outside has led to a generation of short-timers who tend to bounce off institutions without making a dent or the time to achieve the leadership continuity necessary to build institutional momentum. (Duderstadt, 1997, p. 93) Global (2008) reported the importance of higher education administration programs to educate and train future leaders who will fill such important positions. Colleges and universities will thus need to engage in transition and succession planning to prepare these potential leaders for their new roles. The future leaders of colleges and universities will be faced with a multitude of challenges. The high costs associated with the operations of a campus may present the biggest challenge in the future and will require innovative entrepreneurial and strategic thinking and practices. Such practices and policies may be new to the traditional forms of planning and management in higher education; thus, strategic leadership will be critical to not only the success and implementation of ideas, but also to peoples confidence and belief in them. The importance of the university in our society demands experienced, enlightened, visionary, and committed leadership (Duderstadt, 1997, p. 370).

144

Achieving Balance A unifying theme in the literature is balance. Balance entails ensuring that universities are mission-centered and market-smart (Zemsky, Wegner, & Massy, 2005), responsive, yet responsible (Morrill, 2007). Universities need to be able to change and adapt to meet the demands of a changing environment without losing their institutional culture and identity in the process. On leadership, Farnsworth (2007) asserted that a commitment to service first, with management savvy, provides the new awareness needed to attack problems our old thinking created, but has been unable to solve. It frees us to allow our new awareness to evolve as additional challenges emerge (p. 11). There is a call for a balance between management and collegiality that is responsive to environmental turbulence yet responsible to institutional stakeholders. This may entail developing an institutional mission and vision that embrace part of the longstanding institutional mission, roots, traditions, values, identity, and culture while maintaining the flexibility needed to be able to adjust to meet the evolving needs of the institutions environment. This also calls for a balance of the change process itself so that it is not overwhelming, but strategically managed so that people can acclimate to the change process (Morrill, 2007). Lastly, balance involves the right mixture of managers and leaders. The literature mentions the trend of churning presidents and short-tenure administrators and faculty who move from institution to institution, but there needs to be a balance of fresh perspectives and established ideals in a college or university. New members strengthen universities by providing outside ideas, knowledge, and experience. Those who have

145

been part of a universitys history, tradition, and heritage strongly support the institution and ensure that it does not deviate too far from its mission, values, and origins, which preserve its culture and identity, especially during times of drastic change, such as a merger (Duderstadt, 1997). Summary Higher education is changing significantly, and external pressures are forcing colleges and universities to adapt to a new environment. One response to this changing environment has been the decision to merge with other educational institutions. Although the prevalence of mergers in higher education is not an entirely new phenomenon, the field of higher education merger research is still in its early phases. As higher education mergers continue to be studied, institutional knowledge will advance and evolve. Shirley and Peters (1976) noted, It is impossible to foresee all the specific academic and administrative changes which might accompany merger (p. 146). All one can do is prepare and plan as much as possible. In the meantime, it is hoped that this account of a merger sheds light on the merger phenomenon as a whole and its contributing contextual lessons help colleges and universities employ merger as a strategy with greater confidence.

146

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This chapter starts with the Research Statement, the Research Questions, the Research Philosophy, and the Research Design. This is followed by Data Collection Methods, Interview Protocol, Limitations, Validity and Reliability, Ethical Considerations, Data Analysis Methods, and Instruments. The chapter concludes with the researchers Reflections on Personal Experience. Research Statement In 2001, two private, not-for-profit universities, Alliant University, formerly California School of Professional Psychology, and United States International University, merged to create a single, more comprehensive university, Alliant International University. Alliant University was primarily a graduate psychology school, with multiple campuses in California. United States International University was a more traditional, small university, with undergraduate and graduate programs, a main campus in San Diego, campuses in Kenya and Mexico City, and a satellite campus in Irvine. Although the impact of the merger and its resulting consequences and outcomes are still being felt, the initial shock and adjustment that accompanied the merger have since subsided, and the merged university is now in a relatively stable and consistent position. Because 10 years have passed since the merging of the two institutions, the researcher felt that people (particularly those in administrative roles) have had a sufficient amount of time to reflect and learn from the experience as well as the decisions for which they were responsible. Thus, it seemed an opportune time to conduct a preliminary analysis of the merger.

147

With the exception of accreditation reports, employee climate surveys, and student satisfaction surveys, no formal evaluation or analysis of the merger has yet been conducted. Therefore, the opportunity to review, analyze, and interpret the impact and outcomes of the merger, as well as present the process for which it was implemented, is not only useful to the university under study, but can also serve as an example to others, such as university planners, administrators, and scholars who are interested in college and university mergers. Research Questions The research questions were formulated based on the researchers existing knowledge of the merger and themes that appeared in the merger literature (Strategic Planning and Management/Implementation, Change, Impact of Merger, and Leadership), which were translated into the headings and accompanying questions for each stage of the merger (Pre-, During-, and Post-Merger) as well as questions regarding institutional mission, vision, culture, and identity. Research questions were then converted into interview questions, as most of the research questions concerned the views and perspectives of interviewee participants. The goal of the research questions were to understand the merger context as well as link the past, present, and future to create a holistic view of the merger process. In addition, questions regarding insights gained and lessons learned also sought to provide useful information to others undergoing or contemplating a merger.

148

Research Philosophy Qualitative Approach A qualitative approach to the research was used, as the type of data that were collected and analyzed were qualitative. Qualitative data includes lived experience, behaviors, emotions, and interactions (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In sociology, this concept is known as hermeneutics, or understanding social events by analyzing and interpreting their meanings to the human participants involved and their culture (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). Specifically, the researcher was investigating the experiences of certain university officials who played a key role in the merger. Denzin and Lincoln (1994) stated, Qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (p. 2). The natural setting for which this study took place was at the university that underwent merger. The phenomenon under study was the merger itself. This type of research explores contexts holistically and does not attempt to manipulate, intervene, or control any of the results. Because a university merger is a complex process that involves many stakeholders, the researcher wanted to explore the context as holistically as possible to assemble a complete picture. Rationale for Using Qualitative Approach Qualitative methods allow for interactive research and the opportunity to report findings in rich descriptive language as well as the opportunity to capture the experience of participants, using their own words and meanings (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). Merriam (1998) stated, Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the meaning people have constructed [italics by Merriam], that is, how they make sense of their world

149

and the experiences they have in their world (p. 6). Because this study focused on the experiences of others and the meanings tied to those experiences, a qualitative approach was determined to be the best method to report in-depth findings. Creswell (1998) listed common reasons for conducting qualitative research, which correspond to the reasons that a qualitative approach was chosen for this study: The research question starts with how or what so that forays into the topic describe what is going on. This is in contrast to quantitative questions that ask why and look for comparison of groups, or relationships between variables, with the intent of establishing an association, relationship, correlation, or cause and effect (e.g., Did Variable X explain what happened in Variable Y?) The topic needs to be explored, meaning that variables cannot be easily identified, theories are not available to explain behavior of participants or their population of the study, and theories need to be developed. The research needs to present a detailed view of the topic. The wide-angle lens or distant panoramic shot will not suffice to present answers to the problem, or the close-up view does not exist. The researcher needs to study individuals in their natural setting. This involves going out to the setting or field of study, gaining access, and gathering material. The researcher has an interest in writing in a literary style; the researcher brings himself or herself into the study, the personal pronoun I is used, and the researcher uses words rather than numbers to describe the research phenomenon. Audiences are receptive to qualitative research. Although the use of qualitative methods in business research is, at this time, relatively scarce, their use is 150

gradually entering into the field of business and organizations, and researchers and practitioners are becoming more open to their application. The researchers role as an active learner who can tell the story from the participants view rather than as an expert who passes judgment on participants needs to be emphasized. Although the researcher had experienced the merger as a student, the objective of the study was to examine the participants views of the merger experience. For these reasons, a qualitative approach was used as the research methodology. Strengths of Qualitative Research Maxwell (1996) noted that qualitative research helps the researcher understand the meanings attached to participants, events, situations, and actions in the particular context within which participants act and influence, as well as how the context influences them and their actions. It is through the use of empathy (or being able to understand others from their point of view) that the researcher can make sense of the particular context, the perspectives of participants, and their relation to the overall phenomenon under study. Weaknesses of Qualitative Research Qualitative research may be viewed as weak in the sense that it is often not generalizable to other individuals or settings, as findings may be attributed only to the few individuals or cases studied. However, Suter (2006) stated: Those who conduct case studies are probably interested not so much as generalizing their findings to others as in telling a story. Readers of case studies often find useful ideas within the rich descriptions; they may also be stimulated to look at old problems in new ways. Researchers who use case study designs often

151

find that their research generalizes to the extent that others can use ideas embedded within the descriptions in some other, often personal, context. (p. 321) Although this research was not meant to generalize the merger phenomenon and compare the university under study to other merger experiences, it serves to shed light on the experience of one university that underwent a merger, thus adding to the growing body of higher education merger research by providing a unique lens of the merger phenomenon and valuable insight to those interested in institutional mergers. It can aid other researchers and practitioners who are studying, contemplating, or undergoing university mergers by supplying contextual information that they may find useful or applicable to their situation. Qualitative Methods Qualitative methods are used in research designed to provide an in-depth description of a specific problem, program, practice, or setting and are particularly suited for describing complex phenomena (Mertens, 2005). Mertens described qualitative research methods as a situated activity that places the researcher in the world that is being studied. The researcher must get close enough to the phenomenon under study to accurately make interpretations and formulate analyses. In this study, the researcher was already a student at the university under investigation, so the researcher was close enough to the phenomena to accurately study it. In addition to being a student, the researcher had developed a working relationship with several university administrators, which allowed for the opportunity to get close to those in decision-making roles and gain an inside perspective.

152

Shorter-Gooden (2002) noted that: Qualitative methods are particularly useful in answering questions about the meaning of experience, and about the ways in which people understand their own cultural connections and identities. [In turn,] [q]ualitative researchers rely on the participants own words and voices. This approach allows for depth, complexity, and a focus on the inner meaning of experience, or, in other words, a focus on the illumination of cultural meanings. (p. 129) Thus, the researcher used and relied heavily on quotes to convey the perspective of others to portray the culture of the institution(s) and the people who experienced the merger. Research Design Phenomenology Because this study focuses on the phenomenon of mergers (in higher education), a phenomenological design was used. A phenomenological methodology was chosen because this type of research examines the human experience. The goal was to understand the experiences of those who had decision-making authority and played a significant role in the institutional merger. Phenomenology comes from the Greek words phainomenon, meaning that which appears, and logos, meaning study. It is a philosophical method developed by Edmund Husserl in the beginning of the 20th century. The discipline of phenomenology is concerned primarily with the study of structures of experience, or consciousness, known as phenomena. A phenomenon is an observable occurrence or event that can form the subject matter for scientific interest or explanation. As a form of qualitative research, phenomenology relies on the interpretive legitimacy of the researcher and the use of systematic reflection and analysis (Creswell, 1998). Phenomenology has strong

153

traditions in education research whereby researchers and educators in the field use this method to study the experience and meaning of educational phenomena (Denton, 1974). Creswell (1998) stated, A phenomenological study describes the meaning of the lived experiences of several individuals about a concept or phenomenon (p. 51) The empirical phenomenological approach involves a return to experience to obtain comprehensive descriptions that provide the basis for reflective structural analysis that portrays the essences of the experience (Moustakas, 1994, p. 13). In turn, this study was an examination of the meaning of the experience of a merger to those who were actively involved and played a key role in the process as a means to describe the phenomena. Case Study The objective of a case study is to understand how and why occurrences happen within a given context. The objective of this case study was to understand a university merger from the perspectives of those who played a significant role in the process. Though the context of this study takes place over an extended period of time, the time period that was investigated was a 10-year period, from the beginning of implementation (pre-merger) to the present day (post-merger). A case study design is used to get an in-depth understanding of the situation and the meaning for those involved. This design was used to get an in-depth understanding of the merger and the meaning attached to the experience for those in charge and responsible for its success. A case can be an individual, group, institution, or community (Gillham, 2000). In this investigation, the case itself was the merged university. Reasons for using case study method. The case study method was chosen because this method of inquiry was best suited to the researchers worldviews and

154

preference of using a journalistic, investigative approach to research. Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007) advised that a researchers choice of methodology should be congruent with the researchers interest and skills for the particular approach. Because the researcher had investigative and journalistic experience, particularly with respect to conducting interviews and writing articles, this method was the preferred research strategy. In addition, this method allowed for an open-ended approach to examine the views and perspectives of participants, using their own words to not limit the information that they could provide. Chaffee and Tierney (1988) discussed their reasoning for using the case study method to study institutional cultures: The rationale for case studies is straightforward: If we are to improve higher education management, we must understand colleges and universities as socially constructed organizations and discern what can make them more effective. This cannot be done through armchair research, but only through intimate contact with daily institutional life. By departing from traditional lines of inquiry, [this type of] exploration allows us to attempt a multifaceted interpretation of organizational life. Case studies are an appropriate vehicle because they allow for what anthropologist Clifford Geertz calls thick description. The richness and complexity of institutional life prevents us from embracing simplistic answers while encouraging us to broach larger issues. (p. 12) This research thus used a case study approach because one of the objectives was to interpret institutional culture (which, by definition, is qualitative) and its effect on the merger that took place as well as how those in decision-making positions perceived the institutions culture both then and now. Further, Techniques of inquiry appropriate for studying culture [in higher education institutions] include observing participants, interviewing key informants, conducting autobiographical interviews, and analyzing documents (Kuh & Whitt, 1988, p. vii). The techniques, therefore, in this case study,

155

included the use of interviews with key informants and analyzing institutional documents. The reasoning behind this also follows Otts (1989) methods for studying organizational culture, which include qualitative inquiry, the use of triangulation or multiple sources of evidence, and participant observation specifically with the identity of the researcher revealed, using quasi-ethnographic research strategies. Sporn (1996) noted that, to understand the culture of a university, it is helpful to use as many sources of data as possible (p. 50). This particular case study was conducted mainly for intrinsic reasons. Stake (2003) posited: An intrinsic case study is undertaken because the researcher wants better understanding of this particular case. Here it is not undertaken because the case represents other cases or because it illustrates a particular trait or problem, but because, in all its particularity and ordinariness, this case itself is of interest. Study is undertaken because of an intrinsic interest in, for example, this particular child, clinic, conference, or curriculum. (p. 136) This case has special meaning to the researcher because it is the university she has been attending for 10 years, during which the merger took place. She also has become close to many members of the institution, including faculty, staff, administrators, and students, and, therefore, observed their perspectives and views. The uniqueness of the case also stimulated interest, as no similar cases were found in the literature. Stake (2003) suggested that, when selecting a case, the researcher should try to learn as much as possible about both the individual case and the overall phenomenon, especially if the unique circumstances of a case led to specialized insight into an issue. Research about the overall phenomenon of mergers was conducted in the literature review, and empirical research was conducted on the merged university as a way to examine the context of this

156

universitys experience with merger, and add to the literature on higher education mergers. Advantages of using case study method. According to Gillham (2000), the case study method allows the researcher to: Obtain access to a group or organization to uncover what really happensthe informal reality, which can only be perceived from the inside. Represent the views and perspectives of others. Research the processes leading to results, rather than into the significance of the results themselves. Examine how people behave, feel, and think, by getting to know their world and what they are trying to do in it. (p. 11) Thus, the case study method allowed the researcher to uncover what happened from the inside, represent the views and perspectives for those involved, and examine individual personalities that significantly affected the process that led up to the resulting situation, 10 years after the merger. Data Collection Methods Document Retrieval Documentary data (Appendix C) were sought to provide background information on and explanation for changes that took place. Specifically, documentation included institutional histories, the merger agreement and merger objectives, board minutes, accreditation reports, annual reports, strategic institutional planning documents, and organizational charts that depicted structural department changes.

157

Historical Research Historical research, as defined by Suter (2006) is: The collection of documents and artifacts related to a past event, often including a description of patterns or trends, in an attempt to explain a phenomenon or test a hypothesis with present-day relevance. Whether or not history repeats itself is open to debate, but there is little doubt that complete description of the past may help our understanding of the present and future. Historical description and analysis is the focus of historical research, which is also called historiography. (p. 325) Historical research was conducted to get a holistic view of the institutional histories that contributed to the decision to merge. Institutional History Schwartz (2003) stated that, if the goal is to examine a program, policy, activity, or event at a specific institution, then knowledge of the college or university history is essential. A good understanding of an institutions history, the purposes of its founding, circumstances of its chartering, and historical examination of its rituals and traditions can be very revealing (p. 101). Histories of the previous institutions as well as the current institution were thus examined. Prior to the collection of data, the proposed research project was submitted to the university Institutional Review Board, pursuant to the U.S. Federal Government Department of Health and Human Services (2009), which stated that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research should not be greater in and of themselves than any ordinarily encountered in daily life, or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests. The study was deemed of no harm to the participants.

158

Online Open-ended Questionnaire University constituents comprised of students, faculty, and staff who were present during the merger were given the opportunity to participate in an online open-ended questionnaire. The questionnaire (Appendix A) and a letter of invitation (Appendix D) were distributed to potential participants through the university email system. Interviews The main strategy used to gather information in this case study was the interview. Kahn and Cannell (1958) described interviews as conversations initiated for a specific purpose that focuses on specific content. Interviews play a central role in educational research in which their use has contributed greatly as a means to effective research methods (Tierney & Dilley, 2002). Interviews were conducted to gain an understanding of the merger phenomenon from the perspective of those who were involved in and played a significant role in the process. A Letter of Invitation and Consent Form (Appendix E) was distributed to a select group of administrators and others (Appendix F). A Bill of Rights for interview participants (Appendix G) also was distributed to this group. Chaffee and Tierney (1988) recommended interviewing a diverse sample of participants. Thus, an equal number of individuals from both sides of the merging institutions who held multiple positions, including senior faculty, administrators, former and current presidents, and board trustees, were interviewed. Data was collected by implementing a semi-structured interview protocol with open-ended questions. Interviewees were free to diverge from the questions as they deemed necessary to expand upon their answers or provide illustrations of their perceptions, attitudes, and lived experiences. Focused interviews were used to

159

concentrate on the topic (merger) and allow for important information to be gathered within the set time limits, which often accompany elite interviewing. Each personal interview was conducted either face-to-face or on the telephone in a session that lasted approximately 2 hours. The interviews were audio-taped, and the results were transcribed and analyzed. In addition, handwritten notes were taken during interviews to record observational data. Follow-up interviews were conducted via email for the purpose of verifying data and conclusions through member-checks. Participant selection. In qualitative inquiry, the researcher interviews a small, but theoretically significant number of individuals in the course of the study (Tierney & Dilley, 2002, p. 461). Participants were chosen based on purposeful sampling, in which selection was based on current and past positions held at the universities, their level of knowledge in regard to the topic, and their decision-making authority in the overall operation and management of the university in which they played a significant role in the merger process. Thus, the information sought from participants was directly related to the roles they had in the merger. Participants held (often multiple) positions as administrators, faculty, board members, and presidents. Interviewees of this nature are often referred to as key informants or elites. Additionally, most of the participants selected came from both sides of the merger, meaning that they held positions at the previous institution before the merger took place. The researcher selected an equal number of participants from both sides of the merging institutions as a way to seek validity and reliability in the sample population. The only participant who did not come from either of the two previous institutions was the current university president of the merged institution.

160

It is often difficult to gain access to such high-profile individuals in an institutional setting, but the researcher, either herself or via committee members, had established a rapport and personal relationships with participants. Therefore, the opportunity to learn and share their experiences and perspectives will greatly contribute to the research on higher education mergers. Field site. Although the university studied has multiple campus locations, both domestic and international, most of the research was conducted at the largest main campus site for the entire university in San Diego. This site was chosen because: (a) it is representative of the entire university system and of the merger that took place; (b) it was the only campus that experienced a physical merger; (c) this site allowed access and convenience to the researcher, as the researcher is also a student on that campus; and (d) the campus granted the researcher access to administration, faculty, documents, correspondence, and other artifacts appropriate for this study. Other campuses where the researcher interviewed participants were the second largest campuses in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Interview setting. Part of the interview technique is the setting for which the interview takes place (Stage & Manning, 2003). Seidman (as cited in Stage & Manning, 2003) recommended that the interviewer conduct the interview in a neutral, nonthreatening place. Privacy also is an important consideration for building trust as well as a requirement of the human subjects review process (Stage & Manning, 2003). Interviews took place at the site of each participants work, which, in most cases, was on the campus of the field site. Further, interviews were conducted in an office setting, such as the presidents office or a conference room. During interviews, only the participant

161

and researcher were present, and efforts were made (e.g., closing window blinds, turning off phones, having the participants assistant hold calls) to minimize interruptions and distractions. Pilot interviews. Pilot interviews were conducted to practice the interviewing procedure, test the interview questions, determine the time needed to conduct the interview, and make any adjustments needed to facilitate the interview process. Pilot interviewees consisted of one faculty member/former board member and an administrator. Interview Protocol An Interview Protocol was implemented (Appendix B). Qualitative focused interviewing is based on conversation in which the researcher asks specific, semistructured questions related to the study and listens to the respondents answers (Warren, 2002). Gall et al. (2007) argued that the goal of a qualitative interview is to help respondents express their views of a phenomenon in their own words. Warren (2002) contended that the purpose of most qualitative interviewing is to derive interpretations, not facts or laws, from the respondent. Thus, the interview produces situated understandings grounded in specific interactional episodes (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p. 36). Further, Moustakas (1994) stated, In phenomenology, perception is regarded as the primary source of knowledge (p. 53). The focused interview differs from other types of interviews in that the persons interviewed are known to have been involved in a particular situation (Merton et al., 1990). The interview is focused on the subjective experiences of persons exposed to the pre-analyzed situation in an effort to ascertain their definitions of the situation (italics by

162

Merton et al., 1990, p. 3). Qualitative focused interviewing was thus used to get participants interpretation and perspective of the merger experience as well as the decisions that they made that affected the merger. Model Used for Qualitative Interviewing Rubin and Rubins (1995) model of qualitative interviewing, which emphasizes the relativism of culture, the active participation of the interviewer, and the importance of giving the interviewee a voice, was used. This approach counters the limits of the positivist approach to research and borrows from the interpretive and feminist approaches. The interpretive approach recognizes that meaning materializes through contextual interaction and is not standardized from place to place or person to person, emphasizes the importance of understanding the overall conversation and, more broadly, values the importance of seeing meaning in the context (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). The feminist approach to social research suggests how to go about interviewing in a way that respects both parties in the conversation (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). The researcher strove to use an emphatic stance in interviewing and listening, which seeks vicarious understanding without judgment (neutrality) by showing openness, sensitivity, respect, awareness, and responsiveness. Thus, Rubin and Rubins model of interviewing guided the approach used during the interviews that were conducted in this study. Interview Format Taylor and Bogdan (1998) stated that the interviewer should strive to create an atmosphere where people feel comfortable talking openly about themselves. In qualitative interviewing, the researcher attempts to construct a situation that resembles those in which people naturally talk to each other about important things (Taylor &

163

Bogdan, 1998, p. 99). The interview format was, therefore, meant to be relaxed and conversational, as this is how people normally interact. As a way to ensure that the interview was relaxed and conversational, the researcher presented a calm and friendly demeanor and attempted to relate to participants on a personal level on their own terms. Interviewing Techniques Seidman (1998) stated that active listening and intense concentration are the most important interviewing techniques. Seidman identified three levels of listening: (a) Actively listening to what the participant in saying; (b) listening for what is said beneath the stated words; and (c) listening to how the interview is progressing. The researcher strove to be an active listener by using Gordens (1980) interviewer focal skills, which consist of: (a) accurately hearing what the respondent has said; (b) observing the respondents nonverbal behavior; (c) remembering the information received; (d) critically evaluating the information; and (e) appropriately regulating the interviewers own behavior. a. Accurately hearing the respondent. It is important to hear accurately what the respondent has said, even if every word is being recorded on tape (Gorden, 1980). The researcher had to hear to be able to probe and gather the needed information. b. Accurately observing the respondent. The researcher observed the nonverbal accompaniment to the flow of verbal information both to interpret the meaning of the words and to assess the possible effect on inhibitors and facilitators of communication (Gorden, 1980). c. Remembering what the respondent has said. The researcher had to remember information received to probe where clarification and elaboration was needed and

164

to build rapport with the respondent by making it clear that the researcher was paying attention to what they were saying (Gorden, 1980). d. Critically evaluating the information. The researcher evaluated the information received to keep a running inventory of the relevance and adequacy of the information with respect to the objectives and facilitate the state of interpersonal relations between the interviewer and respondent (Gorden, 1980). e. Appropriately regulating the interviewers own behavior. The researcher regulated her own behavior in a manner appropriate to the objectives of the interview and facilitated a positive state of interpersonal relations (Gorden, 1980). Interview Dynamics Dynamically, the interview questions should promote a positive interaction; keep the flow of the conversation going and motivate the respondents to talk about their experiences and feelings (Kvale, 1996, p. 130). Shaw (2002) also noted that the interviewer should be prepared to adapt to the situation at hand and personality of the respondent, rather than stick robot-like to an established script. The researcher used her intuition to gauge the interview process, facilitate the conversation, and ensure a productive exchange so that the needed information from participants could be obtained in the time allotted while simultaneously promoting a positive interaction. Interview Process As often as possible, the researcher followed Bingham and Morres (1959) general suggestions for conducting interviews.

165

1.

Decide what is to be accomplished. The researcher presented the participants with the reasons and objectives for the research before each interview was conducted.

2.

Know the interviewee. The researcher made attempts to learn as much as possible about each participant prior to the interview.

3.

Make appointments. To set up each interview, the researcher made appointments with either the participants themselves or their assistants so that interviews were properly scheduled in advance.

4.

Provide for privacy. The researcher took precautions in scheduling and reserving the time and place of the interviews to ensure that the location provided privacy and security to the participants so that each would feel comfortable talking openly.

5.

Practice taking the interviewees point of view. In planning the interview, the researcher attempted to view the interview situation, the researcher, and the research from the participants perspective.

6.

Know your own personality. The researcher took into account personal biases and assumptions that might interfere with the interviews or participant responses to mediate or minimize their effect as much as possible.

7.

Establish a relationship of confidence. Each interview started with an introduction of the researcher and the research project as well as the goals of the project. Time was allocated to answering respondents initial questions, discussing the informed consent form (Appendix D), and exchanging information regarding interview follow-up and member-checks.

166

8.

Establish pleasant associations. The researcher made every attempt to present a natural front and create a positive and open atmosphere for conversation. The researcher was polite, professional, and appreciative during each interview.

9.

Help the interviewee to feel at ease and ready to talk. As a way to guide participants into feeling at ease, the researcher began with topics that were nonthreatening and easy to talk about. When the main topic was underway, the interviewer attempted to get the participant to talk freely so that the interviewee could express his or her own thoughts, ideas, opinions, and perceptions.

10. Listen. The researcher used the active listening technique to allow participants to talk as much as possible regarding the subject, occasionally probing the participant for explanation and clarification when necessary. 11. Allow for enough time. The amount of time allotted for each interview was approximately 2 hours, which allowed for the majority of questions to be answered, clarified, and expanded upon. Guidelines Followed in Conducting Research Interviews Gall et al. (2007) listed some guidelines, which the researcher followed as much as possible, for conducting a research interview: 1. Assure respondents of absolute confidentiality before beginning the interview. The researcher explained the procedures used before the actual interview took place to assure confidentiality (follow-up, member-checks, and the use of titles rather than names).

167

2.

Build rapport by engaging in small talk before beginning the interview and using everyday conversational style. The researcher made light conversation during the introduction before beginning each interview.

3.

Explain the potential benefits of the study to respondents. The potential benefits of the study, to both the university under study and the overall field of research, were explained to each respondent.

4.

The interviewer should talk less than the respondent. The researcher used the active listening technique during the interview exchange.

5.

Pose questions in language that is clear and meaningful to the respondent. The researcher strove to word questions so that: (a) they were relevant to the general objectives of the study; (b) they clearly communicated to the respondent the specific information needed; and (c) they motivated the respondent to give relevant information as clearly and accurately as possible (Gorden, 1980).

6.

Use simple probes when appropriate, for example, Can you tell me more about that? Probes were used when appropriate to follow up on questions by encouraging the participant to elaborate or clarify what they said (Gorden, 1980).

7.

Avoiding contradicting or appearing to cross-examine the respondent. Interviews were conducted in a respectful and non-interrogating manner.

8.

Do not hint, either by specific comment, tone of voice, or nonverbal cues such as shaking the head, at preferred or expected responses to a particular question. The researcher made every effort to present a neutral demeanor.

168

9.

If a respondent seems threatened by a specific topic, move on to another one. Try returning to the topic later, with different phrasing. Topics also were presented in a non-threatening manner.

10. Save complex or controversial questions for the latter part of the interview after rapport has been established. Interviews were designed to guide participants into topics rather than impose the topics on them 11. When posing threatening or sensitive questions, ask the respondent about the behavior of others as well as about respondents own behavior. Participants also were asked about the views of others in addition to their own views. 12. Do not ask many closed-form questions in succession. There were only two closed-form questions asked, one in the beginning and one toward the end. Participants also were asked to explain the reasons for their answer. 13. Do not change interview topics too often. Interview topics were presented in a logical and, in some cases, chronological order. The Informal Post-interview The informal post-interview is a chat that takes place after the interview has formally ended (Gorden, 1980). The end of the formal interview was indicated by stating the last question to be asked, ceasing to take notes, and then turning off the tape recorder (Gorden, 1980). After the formal interview and during the formal post-interview, the researcher thanked the respondent for his or her participation, discussed the follow-up process, and wrapped up with informal conversation (Gorden, 1980).

169

Limitations This study was limited to the views and interpretations of both the participants and researcher at the institution under investigation. Every person is limited by his or her own perception of reality. Perceptions also may be quite different. Durrell (1961) highlighted the complexities of individual perception through a series of events, each seen through the eyes of a different character, allowing individual perspectives to change over time. The perceptions of participants also may be different at different points in time. The perceptions, then, like the study, are limited to the point in time the research is conducted. Because participants were asked about their experience regarding the merger and the meanings they associated with that experience, the findings were limited to their interpretations of that experience, as well as any biases associated with the meaning of that experience. Because the researcher interpreted the findings both through the use of interviews (with a limited number of key university officials) and analyses of events, the research was limited to the interpretation of those events and the information obtained from interviews, as well as any bias on the part of the researcher. Participants naturally had opinions and beliefs about the merger and its outcomes. Because participants were responsible for the decisions made before, during, and after the merger, they had a vested interest in the results and success of the outcomes of the merger. In addition, they were biased because they were the ones in charge and, thus, the views, decisions, and results of the merger are derived from their interpretations. Therefore, a potential issue with participant bias was whether they were honest about their beliefs regarding the outcomes and success of the merger, as it directly related to the

170

decisions they made and their overall performance. There is essentially no way to ensure participants honesty, other than to initially impress upon participants the importance of learning from the decisions one has made (whether/both positive and/or negative) so that others can learn from their genuine accounts of the experience. The researcher is biased because she is/was a student at the merged university under investigation and, thus, experienced the merger that was being studied from a students point of view (see section titled Researchers Lens on the specifics of researcher bias). It was important for the researcher to recognize her biases from the outset and make them known before the research was conducted. In addition, the researcher had to be consciously aware of her biases and what they may bring to the study, and how they might affect the interaction during interviews and thus influence participant responses. The researcher, in turn, made an effort to present a neutral stance when interviewing participants to get their authentic views on the experience. The researcher also used a field journal to give her personal account, as well as to express her views on the merger experience and compare them to those of participants. Validity and Reliability This study employed strategies as recommended by qualitative researchers: Creswell (1998), Denzin and Lincoln (2003), Gorden (1980), Janesick (1998), Kirk and Miller (1986), Kvale (1996), Maxwell (1996), Merriam (1998), Mertens (2005), Suter (2006), and Yin (1989), for maintaining validity and reliability. In addition, the researcher used these strategies to ensure credibility, also referred to as trustworthiness.

171

Internal Validity Internal validity refers to checking multiple sources of data, e.g., written records, as a means of triangulation (Merriam, 1998). Although qualitative research cannot be replicated, an audit trail that shows how the research was conducted can enhance internal validity (Merriam, 1998). Thus, an important aspect of qualitative research is supplying evidentiary data of the steps and procedures used so that others can see the integrity of the [research] process (Merriam, 1998, p. 141). Yin (1989) referred to this practice as creating a case study database. External Validity External validity refers to the generalizability or transferability of findings. In qualitative research, this involves using thick description and multiple sources of evidence (Mertens, 2005). To achieve external validity, the researcher used theories reported in the field as a basis for structuring the research as well as conducting interviews with multiple participants as multiple sources of evidence. In examining the lived experiences of university officials who played a significant role in merger, theories that related to (institutional) mergers, change, culture and identity, and strategic management, planning, and leadership were used. Data Reliability Mertens (2005) described reliability as consistency in the findings. To ensure consistent findings, the researcher developed an Interview Protocol from the research questions, in which the participants were asked essentially the same set of questions. The interview guide was given to participants in advance of the interview to give them time to prepare and formulate their thoughts.

172

Strategies Used to Seek Validity and Reliability Triangulation is a method used in qualitative research that involves crosschecking multiple data collection sources and procedures (Suter, 2006). It refers to the use of both multiple data sources (for example, multiple informants) and multiple methods (such as key informant interviewing and record reviews; Gilchrist & Williams, 1999). Results were triangulated by the use of multiple sources of data, such as literature in the field, institutional documents, and multiple interviews (with an equal amount of participants from both sides of the merger) with member-checking. Reflexivity. Reflexivity, a uniquely human capability, is the capacity of human beings to distance themselves from their own subjective experiences, to stand apart from and to comment on them (MacAloon, 1984, p. 11). In sociology, reflexivity is an act of self-reference, where analysis refers to the individual who is conducting the analysis (Denzin, 1982). Lincoln and Guba (2000) defined reflexivity as the process of reflecting critically on the self, or human instrument, as the researcher. The purpose of reflexivity is to make known any biases or assumptions that might exist. Disclosing such information is important because the researcher must recognize the boundaries of his or her experience within the context of the study as well as how those boundaries might limit or influence the research. The researcher carefully considered her bias in the context of her personal experience with the merger process through personal reflection both before research was conducted, as illustrated in the section titled Researchers Lens, and after the research was analyzed. Research reflexivity was additionally addressed through the use of a field journal.

173

Field journal. A field journal was kept during the investigation to provide a record of the research (as a form of audit trail) and to engage in reflective writing on the process as well as provide an in-depth account of the steps and procedures used in the research. This allowed the researcher to record initial interpretations of the data gathered and employ reflexivity during the various levels of research. After each interview was conducted, the researcher recorded her interpretation of the interview as well as her view of the experience in the field journal. Peer review. Outside readers, with backgrounds in educational research, were consulted to review the research and the study. According to composition theory, peer evaluation is a useful and proven tool in developing reader-based writing, as opposed to writer-based reading (Piantanida & Garman, 1999). Thus, it is beneficial to have independent readers to help make a document reader-friendly. The document was peerreviewed by committee members and external readers/editors to assess the quality of the research. Ethical Considerations Interviews and data collected in research may reveal unexpected findings that could potentially result in unforeseen consequences. Thus, the researcher took measures to ensure that the results were honestly developed by considering all possible ethical issues. The interviews were conducted in accordance with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) standards, Alliant International Universitys doctoral guidelines, and federal human subject research guidelines. In addition, the following procedures were used to secure ethical and consistent findings.

174

Confidentiality is particularly important in the interviewing of high-profile individuals (Atkinson & Coffey, 2002). To protect the identities of the participants, pseudonyms and/or job titles were used in place of participants real names. In addition, any evidence of the interviews, such as tape recordings, transcriptions, and field notes, were either destroyed or given back to participants at their discretion after the dissertation process was complete. Transcribing Interviews Kvale (1996) stated, One possible guideline for editing, doing justice to the interviewee, is to imagine how they themselves would have wanted to formulate their statements in writing. The transcriber then on behalf of the [participant] translates their oral style into a written form in harmony with the specific [participants] general modes of expression. (p. 170) Thus, interviews were transcribed with the participants modes of expression in mind. Member Checks After the interviews were conducted and analyzed, the researcher followed up with the participants, where they were presented with the entire written narrative transcription as a means to ensure accuracy and credibility of the findings. Participants could note any discrepancies between what was written and what they said or meant to say. Data Analysis Methods Throughout the research processfrom designing the study, to data collection, to data analysisthere are no set procedures or protocols that can be followed step by step. The very lack of structure is what makes this type of research appealing for many, for it allows the researcher to adapt to unforeseen events and change direction in pursuit of meaning. (Merriam, 1998, p. 20)

175

Qualitative data analysis thus allows for flexibility, for which the researcher can pursue many avenues of analysis. Suter (2006) stated, Qualitative data analysis is less technical, less prescribed, and less linear, but more interactive (back and forth) than quantitative analysis (p. 327). Suter (2006) also contended that a good qualitative analysis discovers patterns, coherent themes, meaningful categories, and new ideas and in general uncovers better understanding of a phenomenon or process (p. 323). In fact, some qualitative researchers prefer to use the term understanding of data as opposed to analysis of data (Suter, 2006). After the interviews were transcribed and analyzed and the field journal was reviewed, the researcher addressed the responses to the research and interview questions that were asked of each participant and extracted emergent themes from the data collected. The researcher engaged in reflexive synthesis and analysis, also known as content analysis, as well as connected, compared, and contrasted the participants experiences and perceptions to each other and to the researchers. The final analysis/conclusion consisted of an information-rich and in-depth view of the merger phenomena as seen through the eyes of multiple university stakeholders. Instrumentation In qualitative research, the researcher is the primary instrument used for gathering and analyzing data. Because the instrument is a human being, it is limited by being human; that is, mistakes are made, opportunities are missed, personal biases interfere (Merriam, 1998, p. 20). In addition, all observations, interpretations, and analyses are filtered through and subject to the researchers perspective and her constructs of reality to the research situation, which interacts with other peoples constructions or

176

interpretations of the phenomena being studied (Merriam, 1998, p. 22). The researcher must, therefore, understand how biases and subjectivity shape the study and its findings (Merriam, 1998). It is impossible for no biases to exist in qualitative case studies, as whatever is reported is recorded and analyzed through the researchers lens. Therefore, careful consideration of researcher bias and reflexivity was fundamental to the design of the research methods, interview techniques, and data analyses. In qualitative research, reality varies with each person (Merriam, 1998). The researcher, therefore, carefully considered her role as the research instrument as well as how personal bias and reflexivity might affect the study. Consequently, the researcher consciously took steps to ensure that people, events, and situations spoke for themselves rather than largely interpreted, evaluated, or judged by the researcher (Cohen et al., 2000). Kvale (1996) used the metaphor of the researcher as miner and traveler. The researcher is a miner in that knowledge is understood as buried material from which the researcher unearths valuable data. Some miners seek objective facts to be quantified, while others seek nuggets of essential meaning. The researcher as a traveler embarks on a journey that leads to a tale to be told upon returning home. The interviewer-traveler wanders through the landscape and enters into conversations with the people encountered. The journey may lead to new knowledge; the traveler might change as well. The journey might instigate a process of reflection that leads the interviewer to new ways of self-understanding, as well as uncovering previously taken-for-granted values and customs. (Kvale, 1996, p. 4)

177

The researcher, therefore, saw great importance in keeping an open mind so that new and multiple ways of looking at the phenomenon can be achieved and greater depth can be employed to the findings. Reflection on Personal Experience Clandinin and Connelly (2000) described the task for researchers as consisting of composing field texts that are interpretive records of inner experiences, feelings, doubts, uncertainties, reactions, remembered stories, and so on (p. 86) through the use of a field journal. Thus, while reflecting on ones own experience, the researcher observes the situation or phenomena under study through interaction with participants. In addition, the use of empathy (or putting oneself in anothers shoes) helps guide the researcher toward understanding participants view of the phenomena, which can result in a greater understanding of the overall phenomenon under study. Before the collection of data, the researcher reported her experience and view of the merger phenomenon as reflected in the following section. Researchers Lens As a student of the university that was being investigated, I conducted this study with a personal interest. This interest grew as I became involved in university affairs. It also grew with time as I attained all of my postsecondary and graduate education at this particular institution. In terms of my involvement, I regularly participated in student and university endeavors such as student government (on both local campus and system-wide levels), student publications, athletics, professional associations, clubs, university-led committees, and other activities related to student leadership and participation. This allowed me to develop skills, form relationships with administrative staff and personnel,

178

and acquire behind-the-scenes information about university matters. From an involvement/insider perspective, I gained the most knowledge when I served on the board of trustees for one year. Being on the board gave me firsthand experience not only in the business of running a university, but also using a big-picture perspective (in strategic management, this concept is known as helicopter vision, or a view from the top). Researchers Journey In the fall of 2001, I applied and was accepted to the United States International University (USIU) in San Diego on an athletic scholarship. The summer before I entered the program, the merger with Alliant University/California School of Professional Psychology was announced, and the name was changed to Alliant International University. During my first year on campus, things continued much as they had previously, at least from what I could tell. With the exception of a new logo and a new name (AIU), it seemed as though no apparent changes took place. I was in the business school, which retained all of the same faculty, programs, facility, and students. It wasnt until my sophomore year that major changes occurred. Year Two of the merger (2002-03) included drastic change. It seemed as though certain processes and procedures were finally implemented, and it resulted in many setbacks for the institution. The University experienced severe financial difficulty, and accreditation was placed on Show Cause status by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), the regional accrediting body. Many students were forced to transfer when they were told that their university scholarships had expired. There were countless rumors about the universitys losing its accreditation and going bankrupt. As a

179

result, many students, due to a loss of confidence and trust in their institution, voluntarily transferred. In addition, after a system-wide faculty vote of no confidence, the president was eventually forced to resign. It was a scary time, but I had really come to enjoy this school, and I didnt want to give up on it. It was during this time of anxiety and uncertainty that a friend and I decided to join the student government. We wanted to get access to real sources of information, not only for ourselves, but for our fellow peers, so that we could discover what was really going on and relay the facts. There were so many people who were basing their views and decisions on rumors, and an overall negative attitude toward the administration was sweeping the campus. I was also one of the critics; we all were (we meaning the majority of students and many faculty members). After listening in town hall meetings about the lack of a running budget, student records not being properly managed, and information systems not being integrated, I was appalled at the revelation of mismanagement of the merger, as well. Further, after listening to countless students complain about their misfortunes but do nothing about them, I decided that I wanted to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I didnt have a right to complain unless I was actively trying to resolve the problem. I wanted to be proactive, not reactive. With this mindset, I was able to work with my peers and administrators toward solving problems instead of working against them. The solution required creative strategic thinking, transformational leadership, and inclusive, collaborative decision making. So this topic, for me, is not just close to home; it is home.

180

The University has since recovered from this desolate state, in which many further changes were made to revitalize the institution. I see those changes from the eyes of a student. As the researcher, however, I am interested in the views of those in decision-making roles and their perspectives on the merger. My goal is to be an active learner (Creswell, 1998) so that I can write as objectively as possible about the experiences of the decision makers during and after the merger. It is my hope that these experiences can help shed light on the subject of university mergers and others can learn from this case.

181

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS

This chapter presents the findings obtained through the data collected via (a) documentary archives, documents, and reports; (b) interviews with executive university officials, senior faculty members and administrators, and decision makers; and (c) written responses to open-ended questions that were distributed by email to a range of university constituents and answered via online survey. The chapter is divided in two parts. Part 1 consists of the institutional histories of CSPP/Alliant University and USIU obtained primarily through secondary data including books, institutional documents, and accreditation reports. Part 2 addresses the responses to research questions that pertained to the merger of CSPP/Alliant University and USIU obtained through interviews. Part 1: Institutional Histories It is important to understand the historical context that led to the merger of the two institutions, as it played a direct role in the outcomes and results in the aftermath of the merger. The following section provides a backdrop for the case study by introducing the histories of the legacy institutions, CSPP/Alliant University and USIU, as well as the timeline of the events that took place over the course of the merger history to create the institution that exists today, Alliant International University. California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP) The California School of Professional Psychology, or CSPP, was founded in 1969 by Nicholas A. Cummings, a pioneer practitioner and advocate in the field of professional psychology. The founding of CSPP was truly radical for its time, as the

182

field of psychology was still relatively young, practitioners were scarce, and study was limited to academia in the university colleges of arts and sciences. Until that time, clinical psychologists were the only health professionals not trained in professional schools (Bekerian & Levey, 2005). In 1967, university graduate clinical programs were either being phased out or not started at all, and traditional programs were shrinking (former CSPP Campus Dean interview, 1999). In 1969, 11 Ph.D.s graduated from institutions in the State of California. So the profession was dying and was also being strangled by academia (former CSPP-San Diego Professor and Dean of Academic Affairs). The field of professional psychology, which had emerged after World War II, was being put to rest in Arlington Cemetery (former CSPP Campus Dean, 1999). Many of us didnt want to see this happen and through the leadership of Nicholas Cummings and others, we decided to found a professional school of psychology in California, where the population was starting to boom and demand for psychologists was on the rise. (Former CSPP Campus Dean, 1999) Cummings immediately recognized the need for training practitioners and approached the University of Californias Board of Regents (UC System), whose Chairman was Ronald Reagan, the Governor of California at the time, with the idea of creating a professional school for clinical psychology. This idea of a professional school of psychology proved too radical for the traditional research-oriented UC System. He also approached the University of Southern California (USC), but again he was defeated because, at that time, funding was given to experimental programs rather than clinical programs. Determined that a school of professional psychology was indeed needed, especially in California, Cummings, with the help of the California Psychological

183

Association (CPA), decided to found a multi-campus school; thus, the four campuses of CSPP (San Francisco (CSPP-San Francisco), Los Angeles (CSPP-LA), San Diego (CSPP-San Diego), and Fresno (CSPP-Fresno)) were created, and the nations first professional school of psychology was born. The amazing part of this story was that against all odds we were able to establish CSPP despite the lack of support for starting it (former CSPP Campus Dean, 1999). Today, more than half of all licensed California psychologists are CSPP alumni (Alliant International University, 2009). CSPP Founding President Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D., Sc.D. Nicholas Cummings is an architect of the modern field of professional psychology and is largely responsible for the progress and development of what it is today. As former president of the American Psychological Association (APA) as well as its Divisions 12 (Clinical Psychology) and 29 (Psychotherapy), he was able to foresee the future of professional psychology and, in turn, form a number of national organizations. Dr. Cummings was also one of about 12 to 14 practitioners who refer to themselves as the Dirty Dozen, and who made significant contributions to advance the professional field of psychology through legislation, advocacy, and other endeavors (Wright & Cummings, 2001). As Chief of Mental Health for the Kaiser Permanente health system in the 1950s, Cummings wrote and implemented the first prepaid psychotherapy contract in an era when psychotherapy was not a covered benefit of health insurance. This prepared the way for other health organizations and insurance companies, and eventually the insurance industry, to recognize psychotherapy as a legitimate medical claim. He wrote what is known as the freedom-of-choice legislation, which requires insurers to reimburse psychologists, as well as psychiatrists. He also conducted medical research that showed

184

that psychological interventions could offset costs and save medical/surgical dollars (The Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings Foundation, Inc., 2009). Through his founding of the four campuses of the California School of Professional Psychology, Cummings was able to create an entirely new kind of professional school, one that trains psychologists for the profession by hiring clinicians as full-fledged members of the faculty. He also was largely responsible for creating the Vail Conference, which brings together psychologist practitioners from around the world to present and discuss new practices and developments in psychology, training, and psychotherapy (Wright & Cummings, 2001). Cummings received his Bachelors degree in psychology from the University of California at Berkeley, his Masters degree in psychology from Claremont Graduate School, and his doctorate in clinical psychology from Adelphi University. He has been awarded six honorary doctorates for his innovation in such fields as education and the Greek classics and has been recognized as the foremost entrepreneur in psychology. The launching of CSPP. The launching of CSPP was accomplished with less than $38,000 as well as the support of 250 volunteer faculty, many of whom took time away from their clinical practices to teach classes, and in return were given the title of founder or founding faculty. The first two campus deans, S. Don Schultz [in] San Francisco and Arthur Kovacs [in] Los Angeles worked without compensation for the first six months. After that they became the first paid administrators of CSPP (Wright & Cummings, 2001, p. 77). The founding president did not receive a salary for the first four years of his tenure. The presidents office was established in San Francisco in 1969, when the CSPP System was incorporated in California as a non-profit public benefit

185

corporation. This sacrifice on the part of the founding faculty and administrators made it possible to give students tuition-free scholarships. Books also were donated for the library collection to fulfill the accreditation requirements. All single spaced quotes in the remainder of the chapter are from interviews that were tape recorded in 1999, documenting CSPPs history, as well as from interviews that the researcher conducted as part of the study. The first year, we worked for nothing. That was an exciting and crazy time with a lot of camaraderie, community spirit, and a strong sense of purpose. (Former CSPP Professor and Dean of Academic Affairs, 1999) One professor noted the energy, enthusiasm, and commitment on behalf of the faculty when CSPP was founded: The feeling was positive and addicting when we first started in that we all felt that we were doing something useful and valuable not only for our students, but for the profession and the community and that really energized us. It is only with that level of enthusiasm and commitment that you are able to get people to volunteer their time without pay to a cause they care about. (CSPP Professor, 1999) When I got here I felt that I was part of something newwhich it was; it offered a new approach to psychology, which was a professional practice model based on how medical schools had been formed back in the earlier part of the twentieth century as independent institutions dedicated to their particular track; only later did they begin to affiliate with universities. (Former CSPP-SD Dean of Students, 1999) Another professor said: I never regretted for a moment all the years I had spent here during my career, both paid and unpaid. It was a challenge and an opportunity that few get to experience in their lives. Those were very exciting days. There were ups and downs, but the fascinating part about it was that no matter how many failures or setbacks we had, in the end we always achieved what we had set out to do. It was very satisfying to be a part of that. Perhaps one of the most interesting pieces of information regarding the founding of CSPP is the story behind its first major endowment. Cummings had been courting a

186

prospective donor by the name of Norton Simon (1907-1993), who was one of the wealthiest men in California at the time as well as a recently divorced bachelor. Cummings and his wife thought that perhaps they could match him up with a friend of theirs named Jennifer Jones (1919-2009), who was a movie star during the late 1930s and 1940s. Their plan worked, and the couple eventually married. Their wedding present to each other was a large endowment to CSPP. In its early days, CSPP had difficulty gaining acceptance by the professional psychological community: Our initial efforts in founding the Institution were met with hostility and paranoia from the local psychological community of practitioners because most, if not all, had been trained and educated in traditional academic university programs and thus felt threatened by the insurgence of a practice-based program that turns out professionally and clinically trained psychologists entering into the profession. So it was a challenge to gain credibility and acceptance among the practicing community in addition to the academic community. (Former CSPP Faculty Member, 1999) Another key challenge in gaining acceptance and credibility within the academic and professional community later on down the road was with regard to our large size and the numbers of students we were graduating which grew considerably and some believe, in turn, compromised the quality of the program in doing so. (CSPP Professor, 1999) The first two campuses opened were CSPP-San Francisco and CSPP-LA, which began classes in 1970. CSPP-San Diego was founded in 1972, and CSPP-Fresno followed in 1973. Originally, there was a conceptual blueprint for creating six campuses throughout the State of California, but this vision never came to fruition. (Former CSPP Campus Dean, 1999) In November 1977, the San Francisco campus moved to Berkeley and in 1988 moved again, to Alameda. The Los Angeles campus relocated to a new facility in

187

Alhambra in January 1991. The San Diego and Fresno campuses moved to new facilities in 1996. All of these moves reflected growth in campus enrollments and the diversification of their academic programs. One Professor said that, in the beginning: The organization was extremely loose and the curriculum was in the process of being developed. I realized that it was very difficult to do what we were trying to do. Anybody that wanted to teach something got to teach it so we had a wild assortment of courses that first year. (Former CSPP Professor and Dean of Academic Affairs, 1999) Because the School was not yet accredited in the beginning, The students who came to CSPP were those who would tolerate a high-risk situation. Some of them were high-risk people. Others were brave and bold. It was a dynamic set of circumstances. It was a non-traditional school, attracting non-traditional students and was, really, building its own tradition. (Former CSPP Professor and Dean of Academic Affairs, 1999) An example of this was the issue with students who studied under the phenomenological researcher, Morris Friedan, and thus opted to do phenomenological dissertations: These students regularly felt like their methods were under attack by those in the faculty who teach and subscribe to traditional empirical methods. It wasnt until a meeting where one faculty member pointed to the fact that most of the CSPP faculty were not proficient or familiar with phenomenological methods did this standpoint start to change. (Former CSPP Professor, 1999) In addition, some campuses, for a time, had quality issues with students, their research, and their dissertations. For example, one student submitted a dissertation that described his experience of becoming disoriented after having journeyed through the woods for several days while taking psychedelic hallucinogens (Wright & Cummings, 2001). One former campus founding dean and faculty member recalled the experience of dealing with a fanatic student who sued him and another faculty member for $500,000 due to her failing his class. When trying to fight her grade, she asked to see her test, to

188

which she was given permission. After she received her test, she ran out the door and the professor, regrettably, ran after her. After he caught up with her, he reached for the test, and she bit his hand. After telling this story to other members of the faculty, they told him he should get a rabies shot, which he did. Another traumatic experience during CSPPs first year was the suicide of a popular student named Bruce from the San Diego campus. Bruce, who had been volunteering at an Indian Reservation, committed suicide by using a knife ritual that he learned from the Navajo Native Americans with whom he had been working. He was a very well-liked and respected student and had worked with faculty on developing the curriculum specifically on courses in behavioral theory, psychodynamic theory and others. In those early and fragile days of the Schools founding, this [incident] had quite a traumatic impact on the campus. He was a very popular student and this was a very unexpected event. (Former CSPP Professor, 1999) Bruces girlfriend at the time, also a student at CSPP-San Diego, was invited by the dean and his wife to stay with them at their home while she was recovering. The launching of CSPP involved not only physically and structurally setting up the programs, but also setting the bar for programs to meet a high standard of quality. In reference to this endeavor, one professor said: The transition from sitting on pillows on the floor to failing a dissertation defense should not be missed or forgotten in CSPPs road to achieving high academic standards and quality. Up until then it was a laid back kind of atmosphere. But laying off faculty who were hindering academic quality and hiring those who were committed to quality laid the foundation for achieving high standards and quality. This transition was tough for those who were used to the lax style, but at the same time it forced them to rise to the occasion. These days it is rare for a student to fail a defense simply because our students go into the dissertation process with high expectations for themselves and from faculty and are given the supervision and support they need to do so. (Former CSPP-SD Professor, 1999)

189

Significance of CSPP. CSPP has been a pioneer in several ways. It was one of the first schools of professional psychology in the United States. It was the first, and perhaps only, example of collaboration between a graduate program and a state psychological program developed specifically to design an applied psychology education model that would better serve the public. It was the first independent graduate program devoted to doctoral level instruction. CSPP has served as a leader in the professional psychology movement and within professional psychology organizations. (Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, November 2000) On noting the significance in launching CSPP, a former professor said: There were and are many important people with unique personalities and character traits who have contributed to and made possible the founding of this Institution, its style, its history, and its distinctive legacy. It is important that we capture and pay tribute to the story and incredible journey of one dream that, through the work and efforts of the Institutions members and leaders, became a reality. Its really a success story to the extent that when you and others really believe in something it is possible to achieve it. I truly believe that this Institution has changed the face of psychology. The development of this school in California changed training programs all over the United States and influenced the standards that are now in place today. As a consequence, the profession of psychology has grown tremendously. And those who have been involved with the School can take great pride in their contribution. (CSPP Professor, 1999) The founders of CSPP were inspired by a belief in human problem-solving and the idea that psychology can help people live healthier, fuller lives and overcome both social and development problems. Both visionary and practical, they wanted a school that trained students who come out with both a strong grounding in the scientific foundations of psychology and the hands-on skills a practitioner needs. (Alliant International University Board of Trustees Development Binder, 2007) CSPPs innovative programs and curriculum. Just as radical as the idea of creating a professional school of psychology, CSPPs curriculum was radical for its day. Beginning in the 1970s, CSPP awarded A.A., B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees with majors in clinical psychology, community psychology, developmental psychology, child and

190

family life, the clinical practice of psychotherapy and assessment, and community change and organizational development. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, CSPP chose to focus on clinical psychology; at one point, the only terminal degree offered was the Ph.D. (Alliant International University Website, 2009). The entire program took 6 years to complete: The first two years earned the associate of arts (A.A.) degree and qualified the graduate to be a psychological paraprofessional; that is, to serve as an employee of a psychologist, psychiatrist, or hospital, performing duties that had been part of being a psychiatrist technician. The second two years earned the Master of Arts (M.A.) degree, and qualified the graduate to work as a psychological assistant. (Wright & Cummings, 2001, p. 85) These first two levels were created during a severe shortage of entry-level psychologists, and CSPP was responding to the recently enacted legislation that established the category of psychological assistant. The final degree, which took place in the fifth and sixth years, was the culminating doctorate (Ph.D.) in clinical psychology. Later, the doctorate of psychology (Psy.D.) was added to the program offering. The dissertation was completed in the sixth year, and all students moved through the program as a cohort. Students in the program also were required to undergo personal psychotherapy. Several courses were offered that were unique to the profession of psychology. The CSPP curriculum was the first to include mandatory courses in psycho-pharmacology, along with survey courses in neurology and neurophysiology that were requisite to an understanding of drug therapy (Wright & Cummings, 2001, p. 88). Courses were categorized into series such as the p-series for professional courses: the i-series for investigative courses, the h-series for humanities courses, the c-series for culture courses, and the t-series for theory courses. A coordinator was in charge of each

191

series, thus forming the academic structure of the programs. In fact, the professor who administered the i-series on the CSPP-San Diego campus came from USIUs Psychology Department as the Director of Clinical Training. While other institutions required students to focus on theory, practical application and research sequentially in different years, CSPP faculty designed a curriculum that wove those three topics together throughout each year. This close coupling of field placement and coursework curriculum still makes a CSPP education distinctive. (Alliant International University Board of Trustees Development Binder, 2007) The demanding programs also became fulfilling work for many of the faculty. One former CSPP professor described the academic environment as one of collegiality, support, and learning opportunity for faculty as well as students (former CSPP Professor, 1999). Even though the work was rewarding, it was not easy to reach a high standard of quality for the programs. Obtaining WASC and APA accreditation. To obtain regional and special accreditation and achieve a high standard of quality, CSPP had to overcome many obstacles. For instance, those who sit on accrediting boards tend to come from the academic community (colleges and universities), and the founders of CSPP came from the practicing community rather than the academic community; this created difficulty in CSPPs ability to obtain accreditation and acceptance among both the academic and professional community, most of who had been trained in traditional academic programs at colleges and universities. Additionally, because CSPP was the first of its kind to offer professional programs, there was no precedence in evaluating, assessing, and accrediting such programs. It was for this reason that CSPP originally did not plan to seek APA

192

accreditation; they believed that accreditation and evaluation standards were biased toward the academic community. However, despite these traditionally imposed standards, CSPP ultimately did fight to get accreditation by proving its ability to provide high-quality, professional education and training. Nevertheless, because of these traditionally imposed standards, CSPP had to become more flexible in meeting the requirements of these standards as the Institution moved toward a more traditional model of academia, namely, fulfilling requirements for teaching, research, and service: Things like us wanting to have faculty contracts rather than tenure and the incorporation of practical training for our students became major points of contention. Wed win some and wed lose some. It was a roller coaster ride with lots of successes and lots of hard times. In turn, some of these things have shifted away from CSPPs original philosophy as we sought accreditation and thus had to succumb to the rules of the game imposed on us by those on the traditional end of academic accreditation. This is not to say that these are bad rules, but they are somewhat different and we had to adjust to that difference to obtain accreditation. (CSPP-SD Professor and Director of Professional Training, 1999) One of the most significant moments in CSPP history was when the Institution was given approval from WASC to offer the Ph.D. degree in clinical psychology, which, at that time, was typically given only to purely academic institutions. Some believe that the resistance to allow CSPP to offer this degree came from those established purely academic institutions that did not want the competition or the legitimization of CSPP to enter into the area of psychology. It was also for this reason that CSPP, in the beginning, chose not to offer a Psy.D. degree. We didnt want our students to be seen as second rate if they had a Psy.D. degree. So, in the beginning, we only offered the Ph.D. This is also the reason we are one of the few independent professional schools of psychology that does offer the Ph.D. (Former CSPP-SD Campus Dean, 1999)

193

In 1977, CSPP received its first WASC accreditation. Historically, the four campuses were accredited separately by WASC as distinct institutions. The first to receive WASC accreditation was the Los Angeles campus. The American Psychological Association (APA) initially accredited all the Ph.D. programs between 1978 and 1985. The Psy.D. programs, instituted at the four campuses in the late 1980s and early 1990s, were accredited for the first time in 1991 and 1995. The first CSPP campus to obtain accreditation from the APA was San Diego. It was granted APA accreditation on appeal, something that many took pride in by the schools ability to overcome the stigma that was placed on CSPP in its early days of being a nontraditional professional school that was not initially accepted by many in both the professional and academic community: APA had denied accreditation because of CSPPs reputation as a non-traditional free-standing professional school that was not affiliated with a university, was not engaged in basic research like most universities, and was focused on preparing students to become practicing licensed professionals as opposed to faculty scholar-researchers, which had been the standard practice for most university psychology programs at the time. But then we went to Washington, DC to present our case to a board hearing panel and were immediately granted accreditation. After we got APA accreditation everyone was extremely proud and morale became very high. It was a long uphill battle to establish CSPP as a credible and reputable institution, but once that reputation was established there was a momentum and an excitement for the Institution. It took many years and a lot of hard work to build the school up to the level that it is today. (Former CSPPSD Campus Dean, 1999) According to one former campus provost, Getting APA accreditation put us on the map. Not only were we seen as an educational institution, but we were also a provider of services to the community. We received grants and donations to open up satellite centers in the inner city. In this way we were able to fulfill an important part of the CSPP mission of helping those underserved by working with disadvantaged and culturally diverse communities. Today we have psychological

194

service centers (PSCs) each supervised by a member of the faculty and each of which has to be self-supporting. We have child custody evaluation services; learning disability diagnostic services; an anxiety and biofeedback clinic; a multimedia psychotherapy clinic that uses virtual reality to treat certain phobias; exchange programs and joint research projects with institutions and organizations in other countries; and new continuing education and certification programs. (Former CSPP-SD Campus Chancellor, 1999) CSPPs governance system. The CSPP Corporation was founded in 1969 for the specific and primary purpose of providing education and training in psychology. Members of the CSPP Corporations board of trustees were core faculty, degree-seeking students, and public trustees (4 trustees elected by the faculty and 4 trustees elected by the students from each of the four campuses, 16 public trustees, 8 trustees from a community board, and the president, who is an ex-officio member without a vote). Changes to the articles or bylaws required, in many instances, consent of two-thirds of the members (Alliant Board of Trustees Development Binder). The board of trustees entrusts the management of the university to the president and the presidents cabinet, comprised of the Senior Vice-President and Vice-Presidents for Academic Affairs, Administration, Enrollment, and Student Services (Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, November 2000). Because the California Psychological Association (CPA) was heavily involved in the creation of CSPP, half of CSPPs board of trustees, in the beginning, was made up of board members from the CPA, which meant that the president of CSPP was ex-officio with a vote on the CPA board. This structure was later dismantled by the next CSPP president, John ONeil, through a series of lawsuits. CSPP had a unique system of governance that allowed for the inclusion of faculty and students on the board. The reasons for this have been linked to the egalitarianism of the times, that CSPP was founded in thinking that these constituent groups deserve a

195

voice and a vote on the universitys board (Wright & Cummings, 2001). Perhaps the reason that the founders chose to allow these groups to have a say in university decision making was that the CSPP faculty held contracts rather than traditional ranks and tenure, and the students had no centralized form of governance. Therefore, representation on the board might have been a way to make up for the lack of those traditional university shared-governance systems. Nonetheless, the inclusion of faculty and students on the board of trustees has undoubtedly affected its dynamics and, at times, has resulted in great tension over points of view. The remainder of the board was comprised of public trustees or members of the community who were external to the institution, such as local business leaders and professionals. CSPP called this portion of its community board, the Board of Overseers, a name borrowed from Harvard. Care is given to achieving balance among public members with regard to diversity and geographic region. Public members include at least one alumnus, other distinguished professionals, and public-minded citizens similar to those who serve on the boards of trustees of other private, non-profit institutions of higher education. (Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, November 2000) Some of CSPPs board members included some of the top business and community leaders in California, including Stanley Langsdorf, senior vice-president and controller of the Bank of America; Bruce Woolpert, president of GranitRock; Carl Fredrick, senior-vice president of Fiber Board; Judge Creed of the Superior Court; and Patricia Costello, president of the California Association for Mental Health. The Board of Overseers was initially chaired by Dr. Charles Thomas, founder of the Association for Black Psychologists (Wright & Cummings, 2001).

196

It was believed that these people could give us a connection and network out in the community, including those segments of the community, such as the business community, where it is valuable for a school to have recognition and appeal in order to solicit contributions and so forth. (Former CSPP Professor and Board Member, 1999) The board of trustees that exists today for Alliant International University no longer uses the term Board of Overseers to refer to public trustees, but the eight seats on the board are still reserved for four students and four faculty members. One former CSPP-SD faculty member who had served on the board for 16 years remembers the CSPP board as: consisting of many bright and competent people of mixed backgrounds, talents, abilities, and interests. Some had strong backgrounds in business while others struggled with reading and understanding financial statements. Some were young business professionals while others were older retirees. Some were so old that they would re-introduce themselves to me at every meeting as if theyd never seen me before. Some had no interest in psychology whatsoever. Others were bored. Some were literally so bored that they slept at board meetings. Luckily over that 16 years, there was much turnover in the composition and leadership of the Board. So it was exciting to see the Board go from complacency and boredom to positive, constructive, and active leadership and involvement. (Former CSPP-SD Professor & Board Member, 1999) CSPPs organizational structure. The affiliation of the CSPP campuses could be described as loosely coupled at best. The structure of CSPP involved a federation of campuses with no real centralized authority: Rather than organized as unified or system-wide institution, each CSPP campus operated autonomously with its own chancellor responsible for the academic and administrative affairs of the campus. Deans or program directors reported to the chancellors and administered academic programs. Campus staff all reported up a chain of command to the chancellor. Because of the duplication across the system, a large administrative structure existed to serve a relatively small number of students. [The] faculty and administrators on each campus designed, staffed, and implemented [their own] academic programs on each campus. Financial and academic planning had occurred as interdependent processes between the campuses and the System. Most new initiatives, such as new programs, emerged on the campuses. (Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, November 2000)

197

However, despite the campus autonomy, The CSPP System has always been governed by one Board of Trustees and one President, united by one mission statement and linked by one balance sheet (Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, November 2000). In turn, the campuses shared a common mission, a common strategic plan, a board, and the services of a system office. The system office was led by a president, but the setup was akin to a weak federal-strong state system. The system office provided support services and coordination (i.e., finance, administration, enrollment and marketing, institutional advancement, information technology, human resources, and academic affairs), but [ultimately] the decision-making power was held by the chancellor of each campus. Campuses competed with one another for students and prestige, and new programming ideas were reluctantly shared with other campuses, if they were shared at all. (Rozhon, 2008, p. 92)
There really was no meaningful central administration in place, whether structurally or otherwise. This goes back to the founding of CSPP and the leadership style of the founder, Nick Cummings, who was autocratic, but at that point you kind of had to be because it comes down to enrolling your first class of students and deciding whether they have to pay or not since it was just beginning. They didnt even know if they could get students licensed when they first started. So this is how the school and campuses got started and nothing had really evolved into a centralized administration. In 1975, Nick Cummings proposed changing to a more centralized structure, but the deans revolted and he was forced to resign. So during that period there was an autonomous campus model. (Former CSPP/AIU Senior Vice-President, 2009)

CSPPs institutional identity and influence. The institutional identity at CSPP resides largely in the profession and values practiced and studied by the faculty, which is the profession and discipline of psychology. Unlike other colleges and universities that have a faculty from a multitude of fields, professions, disciplines, and expertise, the faculty members of CSPP were and are practicing psychologists, and the students at CSPP were and are training to become practicing psychologists. Therefore, the CSPP identity was/is that of (professional) psychology, which made it somewhat of a homogeneous institutional culture and identity, as everyone was there for psychology. This does not mean that psychology, as a profession or field, is homogeneous. Therefore, to understand the institutional identity of CSPP, one must have at least a broad or basic

198

fundamental understanding of psychology, especially as the CSPP faculty, as psychologists, have many different backgrounds, training, education, and experience in different areas of psychology. CSPPs clash with the ivory tower. Because CSPPs faculty members and students who are being educated and trained share the profession and discipline of psychology, this is largely where the institutional identity of CSPP liesin the profession and discipline of psychology. To understand the identity of psychology as a profession and discipline, it is important to note the values and development of its identity as both a field of practice and as a field of study. Elements that form an identity include the values held. Leahey (2012), a well-known psychology historian, notes that psychology has always been grounded in a system of values. Psychology is a scientific discipline rooted in philosophy and, in fact, was once understood as the practical application of a philosophy. This philosophy was based on moralism and religious principles, emphasizing mans need to be attuned to his spiritual nature. By the end of the 19th century, the newer, scientific, rationalist tradition arose in opposition to psychology as a discipline, which led to widespread interest among those in the psychological community to counter this sentiment by engaging in scientific, empirical, objective/unbiased, and value-free research on the science of human nature, in which the psychological community sought to break all ties with its philosophical roots to address the social-economic, disciplinary, and legal concerns regarding the legitimacy and effectiveness of the practices and understanding of psychology. Thus, to be regarded as a true scientific academic discipline, much research had to be conducted to fill the void of the unknown and form the body of knowledge.

199

After much progress was made to establish the scientific body of knowledge, many in the psychological community believed that a philosophically neutral discipline had been achieved, but, according to Leahey (2012), the values of scientism had merely been substituted. Unfortunately, this focus on rationalist and scientific ideals led to an identity crisis and schism in the profession, as so much time and energy had gone into the development of psychology as an academic/scientific discipline. In addition, many, both within and outside of the field, questioned its practical relevance and ability to effectively address the subjective human experience, as scientific theories often provide only general knowledge, which will not suffice for the practicing profession of psychology in the real world. For many in the psychological community, this led to a division between those who wanted to teach and research the scientific discipline of psychology and those who wanted to practice it as a profession. Ultimately, this division is what led to the creation of CSPP, founded by practicing psychologists who felt that the practical training needs of the profession were not being adequately addressed by institutions whose faculty, for the most part, did teaching and scholarly research in the ivory tower of academia, which was not grounded in the real world. During CSPPs early years, it went through a developmental process, similar to that of their own field of psychology, in which they were required to establish themselves as a legitimate and credible source of education and training, worthy of recognition to their counterparts in both the academic and the practicing world. For many at CSPP, this was difficult, as CSPP had to overcome the resistance held by their colleagues in the academic/scientific/scholarly arena of their shared and divided field to

200

be accepted and recognized as being of the same caliber as the institutions of their colleagues. In the beginning, it was believed that the institutions would complement rather than detract from and compete with one another in bridging theory to practice, but, unfortunately, it has taken a long time for the two sides to come together in the spirit of advancing the field as both an academic and an applied discipline. To some extent, tension still continues between those on the academic side and those on the practicing application side, and CSPPs professional identity largely resides in the practicing side. The resistance to come together likely has to do with the tendency of people, often professional practitioners and faculty, to protect themselves when they feel that their area of expertise is being threatened or downgraded. Each side views the other as being inadequate in some way in their field and view themselves as being better or more competent. Both sides were rightfully proud of overcoming obstacles to advance their field and profession of psychology, but egos on both sides can often hinder cooperation and collaboration, especially in bridging theory to practice. CSPP was founded in 1969, a time when there was widespread reaction to and opposition of scientism and its emphasis on rationalism. In the 1960s, the Human Potential Movement came into prominence, preaching emotional openness and being true to oneself. Followers of the movement believed that every man and woman has a blueprint for a preexisting authentic self, which he or she has an obligation to discover. Growth was no longer seen as a product of intelligence and problem solving (following the rationalistic tradition), or character development (following the earlier, religiousbased tradition), but more as a product of emotional development. The Human Potential

201

Movement influenced psychology into a new version of moral authority, looking inward for moral direction, and relying heavily on the gauge of personal feelings. In addition to the professional identities associated with the field of psychology and individual career specialization, CSPPs identity encompasses the values associated with reaching out to underserved and minority populations. There is a respect for and appreciation of diversity, as illustrated by CSPPs creation of MERIT, an effort to serve and help people in such groups. CSPPs struggle and quest for identity. CSPP, in its efforts to gain accreditation, underwent challenges associated with gaining acceptance and credibility in a field that is so divided between those who practice and those who teach. Many faculty members in the traditional academic community have concentrated their efforts on scientific research and teaching in academia, and perhaps practice occasionally. By contrast, in CSPPs early years, the faculty taught part-time, as they were primarily full-time practicing clinicians (hence the reason CSPP used faculty contracts as opposed to traditional, university-granted faculty tenure). However, as CSPP began to experience growth in the programs and enrollment, faculty workloads increased, and many who chose to remain at CSPP had to abandon their clinical practices to take on the added teaching and administrative workloads. Although this led many to focus their energies on developing the schools programs/services and work toward gaining accreditation, it compromised their work outside the school as practicing therapists/clinicians, which many felt was what distinguished CSPP as it was originally founded. Some faculty even resent efforts made by CSPP to look like everybody else

202

and abandon what use to make CSPP so unique, distinctive, and successful (CSPP Professor, 2009). CSPP continues to struggle with the mandates imposed by the academic community and play by their rules. However, CSPPs proven ability to tap into the large market of students who wish to be taught and trained in real-world clinical programs that took place in the 1970s through the 1990s has largely influenced and transformed the kinds of clinical programs offered today by institutions throughout the country. CSPPs distinctive identity. CSPP has developed multicultural competencies, which are embedded in its institutional identity, through the creation of MERIT (Multicultural Education Research Intervention and Trainingnow called I-MERIT, as it is now international). This program incorporates multicultural competence into all of the institutions activities, making it a differentiating factor that distinguishes CSPP from other more traditional programs. Multicultural identity. CSPPs commitment to multiculturalism and focus on people of underserved communities, including minorities, immigrants, underserved racial or ethnic populations; people with disabilities, diseases, or medical conditions; and people who are underserved due to geographic location, socioeconomic factors, or sexual orientation, is a unique and distinguishing factor of CSPPs curriculum, philosophy, and mission (Kuba & Bluestone, 2002; Swope, 1987; Tori & Ducker, 2004; White & Henderson, 2008). It was through this commitment that The MERIT Institute was founded, and, through the work of its members on the four CSPP campuses, defined the competencies

203

a professional psychologist must master to be an ethical and effective practitioner in a diverse society (Persico, 2002, p. xi). In turn: The MERIT Institute developed and implemented multicultural competency standards, and ensured that in the training of professional psychologists, there was a campus, institutional, educational, and training ethos that reflected respect for the importance of diversity. (Persico, 2002, p. xv) MERIT thus worked to infuse a multicultural content throughout all of the institutions courses. In addition to the research conducted by CSPP faculty, many CSPP students and alumni also have contributed to a sizable body of research and knowledge on multiculturalism and underserved populations, particularly in regard to competence, education, research, intervention, and training. Today this institute, now known as I-MERIT, has expanded to include the aspect of internationalism, derived from USIUs emphasis on people of diverse countries, which has allowed for a more encompassing and holistic framework for addressing problems and issues using both domestic/multicultural and global/international perspectives. Through I-MERIT, international and multicultural competencies are now infused across the institutions curriculum, programs, services, events, practices, and activities (Alliant International University, 2006). CSPP continues its tradition of innovation and timely response to community need by being one of the first professional psychology schools to integrate multiculturalism into its entire curriculum. CSPPs I-MERIT initiative is one of the first of its kind to promote multiculturalism and internationalism, and monitor its implementation. CSPP Clinical Psychology and Marital and Family Therapy programs have multicultural competencies woven into the syllabi of most required courses. CSPP Clinical Psychology programs also offer a multicultural emphasis area, which allows students to further focus their studies on this important area. (Alliant International University, 2009)

204

Not only did the multicultural emphasis become engrained into education, research, intervention, and training, but it was also later formalized and institutionalized through CSPPs mission. The Mission Statement of CSPP reads as follows: The mission of the California School of Professional Psychology is to provide the highest quality of education, training, research and service in professional psychology and related human service fields. CSPP strives to improve the quality of life by addressing major contemporary human social issues in a problemsolving way, fostering respect for human diversity in a multicultural society and combating discrimination in all its forms, especially racism, sexism, and heterosexism. In all of its activities, CSPP is committed to exhibiting the highest professional and ethical standard, addressing the needs of both individuals and organizations and serving those whom are underserved. CSPP faculty and student culture and influence. Because CSPP was created and founded by faculty, it is a faculty-focused/faculty-oriented institution/school. This means that faculty ultimately have the largest singular voice and influence in the institution/school, as they occupy the most powerful stakeholder influence groups: core faculty members, administrators (e.g., program directors, deans), and voting members (e.g., trustees) on the board of trustees (Kipley, 2008; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Therefore, CSPP faculty members have a salient degree of power; and, because many students come to the university to study under such faculty members, they usually side with faculty on institutional matters. At times, this has created much tension and even hostility within the institutions governance system, especially when faculty and, respectively, students oppose administrations decision making. Thus, many times, faculty and students have been able to force administrators out or oppose their decisions. The four campus cultures of CSPP. From the outset, each campus had decidedly different character (Wright & Cummings, 2001, p. 89). CSPP-San Francisco was characterized by the founding president as the epitome of anti-intellectualism that

205

was taking place in the 1970s. Psychologists and their students did not sit in chairs and desks, but on pillows on the floor. Graduation was conducted outdoors and barefooted, with the members of the graduating class holding hands and chanting (Wright & Cummings, 2001, p. 84 & 89). It was this campus that constantly petitioned for exotic courses, such as astrology, channeling, past lives, and Werner Earharts EST, all of which were refused. Cummings also recognized CSPP-San Francisco as CSPPs most vibrant campus, and many administrators had difficulty managing it (Wright & Cummings, 2001, p. 90). CSPP-Los Angeles, more than any of the other campuses, reflected what the CSPP was intended to be. Radical in its own right, it nonetheless was not engulfed by anti-intellectualism (Wright & Cummings, 2001, p. 90). Like CSPP-San Francisco, CSPP-Los Angeles was very much committed to social issues, but at the same time was consciously aware of maintaining the standards of accreditation. Also like CSPP-San Francisco, CSPP-Los Angeles often had major conflicts with its campus administration, most notably its dean. CSPP-San Diego was described as the most stable of all the campuses, as it had only one dean, Maurice Zemlick, during the founding presidents seven years of tenure (Wright & Cummings, 2001, p. 91). Dr. Zemlick and his wife, Lucille, managed the campus in a no nonsense fashion. The campus was located in a new industrial park, where students had access to a swimming pool and other amenities not available on other campuses. Many students on the CSPP-San Diego campus saw Dean Zemlick as a kind of father figure and his wife, Lu, who ran the Business Office, as the nurturing mother (CSPP-SD history video, 1999). Students referred to the campus as the mom-

206

and-pop store. Maury and Lu were very personally invested. They led with intensity of purpose and focus in developing the campus. Nick Cummings even recognized CSPPSan Diego as being the best run, financially (former CSPP Professor, 1999). CSPP-San Diego reflected the CSPP dream, while, at the same time, being our most solid campus (Wright & Cummings, 2001, p. 91). CSPP-Fresno has been described as the low man on the totem pole. This campus was started, and to a large extent has survived, because of its founding dean, Dr. I. M. Abou-Ghorra. Dr. Abou-Ghorra is a well-known Fresno psychologist and a strong believer in rural community psychology if we were to reach underserved areas. With his wife, Eva, [Dr. Abou-Ghorra] made that campus a success, even though it was the least popular with student applicants (Wright & Cummings, 2001, p. 91). Because it was so unpopular, CSPP-Fresno has almost been shut down several times. CSPP-Fresno later opened a satellite campus in Sacramento, which one student described as the stepchild of the Fresno campus (Alliant online survey, 2009). Exit Nick Cummings: Enter John ONeil. Because each campus of CSPP had its own distinct culture and its own distinct administrative leadership, things were very difficult to manage from a centralized position, such as university president. Even though Nick Cummings had a unique vision for a professional graduate school of psychology, the realities of dealing with an uncompromising group of faculty and students can cause even the most inspiring visionaries to lose steam. Cummings, the founding president of CSPP, was eventually forced out by the faculty he had hired and the students he had admitted. On the Los Angeles campus and on other campuses, there was a movement to replace Nick, said a former CSPP campus dean (1999).

207

The unruly unrest and rebellion of the various campus fiefdoms, as they were called, in wanting to be autonomous and not cede control to any centralized authority, proved too difficult to manage by the founding president, and, after seven years in the presidency, Cummings agreed that the best thing to do was to step down. The difficulties associated with managing the various campuses are a major theme in the overall management of the institution which, consequently, foreshadows many of the subsequent problems. Although Cummings was a true visionary and charismatic entrepreneur in creating the first professional school of psychology, his enthusiasm for dealing with the managerial problems and issues that arose during the course of his presidency may shed some light on his leadership style. Nick was a charismatic leader, and, as charismatic leaders go, they dont usually survive more than five years. Nick lasted for seven. After that, charisma is often replaced with boring or bureaucratic style (former CSPP-SD Professor, 1999). At a Friends of CSPP dinner held during the APA Conference in 1999, the then-new CSPP president said that founding is not managing and managing is not founding. Often, visionary entrepreneur types do not have the tolerance or skill set to manage the day-to-day operations of an enterprise they have created. Instead, this type of people prefers big-picture ideas, outside-the-box thinking, and creative decision making. These individuals do not thrive on details, and, when things get stagnant, they tend to get bored and often move on to another project. An individual who starts an organization does not necessarily have the same kinds of skills and abilities that are needed to make an organization flourish (CSPP Professor, 1999). This may well have been the case with

208

Cummings. He fully acknowledged that he was not what he referred to as an institution builder. In reflecting on his role as president, he said, I enjoy startups, and when a new organization reaches a certain level, I lose interest because I am not an institution builder. My life has been characterized by a succession of startups, leaving the institution builders to pick up where I left off. (Wright & Cummings, 2001, p. 97) Cummings described CSPPs next president, John ONeil, as one of those institution builders. When CSPP was in the process of determining its next president, the consensus was to choose someone who would be able to increase the financial standing of the school, as opposed to appointing a clinician or practitioner in the field of psychology to lead the institution. That was the story behind the selection of ONeil, who had been a fundraiser for a school in the San Francisco area. When ONeil came into the presidency in 1975, his first task was to dismantle the unworkable governance system and fire the campus deans who were so adamantly opposed to the former university president (Wright & Cummings, 2001, p. 102). He also instituted plans to diversify and grow the Institutions programs as a means of increasing tuition-based revenue. The original conception of CSPP was a school for psychologists taught by psychologists. However, John ONeil, in an effort to bring in more money, wanted to diversify the programs to include undergraduate education and so forth, which did not exactly jive with some of the CSPP faculty who had a different conception of the School as a school for psychologists by psychologists. (Former CSPP Campus Dean, 1999) The fact that ONeil was not a psychologist ultimately caused a great strain on his ability to lead the people of CSPP, which later may have contributed to his stepping down as president. Although he undoubtedly had to make some tough and significant decisions, ONeil did grow the institution and stabilize it from its previous state of

209

political unrest, at least for a while, and served as president for 21 years, three times as long as the founding president (Wright & Cummings, 2001). The growth of CSPP. During ONeils tenure as president, CSPPs enrollment grew substantially, as it was one of the few post-graduate psychology programs in the country, and certainly in California, at the time that offered hands-on, professional training. In addition, demand for psychologists was increasing, as Californias population was on the rise. For the first 20 years of the schools existence, the demand for individual psychotherapeutic services in California was enormous. [The] four campuses [of] CSPP all experienced linear growth throughout the 1970s and into the early 1980s. In the 1990s, CSPP recognized growing societal needs in psychology, health care, education, and management and began to expand its academic offerings. (Combination Proposal Submitted to WASC, November 2000) However, not all faculty felt the desire to expand and grow the program. Many faculty members in the clinical program felt that the increase in size would lead to a compromise in quality with regard to student-to-faculty ratios, student selection practices, and faculty teaching loads (CSPP-SD history video, 1999). Many faculty members also had enjoyed developing close relationships with individual students when the institution was small and just starting out. As CSPP became more tuition-dependent and the class sizes grew, personal attention and student mentoring became more difficult. The former associate chancellor for the CSPP-San Diego campus remembers the first class of 1978 of about 20 students, who made a distinct mark on the campus by initiating a tradition of student-hosted faculty roasts. While they took their education very seriously, they also liked to play and were a playful group. They thought that one way to enliven the atmosphere and have a good time was, in the sketch style of Saturday Night Live, perform skits acting like the faculty. They would perform these skits usually on the last Saturday

210

before graduation. They were quite irreverent and some got pretty hot, but they were all in good fun. This was a tradition that brought students and faculty together in a lighthearted way. As the school got bigger in the late 1980s, the distance between the students and the faculty grew, and the kinds of things that students used to feel comfortable doing with faculty sort of diminished. I think our students now feel that they are at a greater distance with our faculty, and I would like to see that distance overcome. In the early days, the school was much smaller and the student body was much smaller. As the size of the school grew and the organizational structures changed to accommodate that grew, students, in turn, might have felt more distant from the faculty and from each other. (Former CSPP-San Diego Associate Chancellor, 1999) Another CSPP-San Diego Professor said that: The Institution became less selective, and class size became very large compared to most graduate programs. It became more about the business of education than about the quality of education. Programs began to diversify and become semiautonomous, which later on became quite chaotic, with different programs working independently and without an overall academic dean in charge of all the programs on each campus. I call these years the Camelot Years. The campus used to be a small, intimate community. Campus growth led to de-personalization and a decreased quality of students, some of whom did not fit the standards or criteria for admission. [As a result,] some students were more interested in completing the program for a credentialed piece of paper than gaining knowledge. In some of my classes, I had both masters-level and Ph.D. students together. There was a very big gap in the abilities, efforts, maturity, and commitment of students in those two groups, and in some cases half the class would fail the course as a result of their inability to meet the requirements. But the school had to increase enrollment to finance the costs of running the institution. I therefore believe that there is sometimes an unfair quota to admit students when it sacrifices the quality of the institution. (CSPP-San Diego Professor, 1999) Some faculty resented the increased workload as a result of the rapid growth: Part of the original philosophy of CSPP was that faculty were supposed to teach what they practice and practice what they teach. In keeping with this philosophy, faculty had been hired in the beginning to teach on a half-time or part-time basis so that they could still practice as clinicians and teach what they practice professionally. Most of the faculty at that time had their own private practices. However, as the student population grew, so did the teaching and related work load, which left less time for faculty to dedicate to their practice. Also, as faculty schedules got busier, they had less time to mentor and supervise students in a professional practice setting. (CSPP-San Diego Professor, 1999)

211

From school to university. During the mid-1980s to late 1990s, the demand for mental health professionals in California had substantially been met. These changes plus the strong economy in technology-related areas has reduced the number of students seeking post-graduate education in psychology. Applications to clinical psychology doctoral programs are down significantly statewide as well as nationally (Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, November 2000). Because CSPPs primary focus had been, for the most part, doctoral clinical psychology (95% clinical Ph.D), this created some cause for concern at the board level regarding the consequences of putting all your eggs in one basket and relying on one central program as the institutions main source of revenue. The board believed that a diversification and expansion strategy would increase and stabilize the institutions revenue base, thus ensuring the long-term viability of CSPP, which is the boards major responsibility (Rozhon, 2008). In turn, the CSPP board of trustees initiated a strategic planning process in 1993 that culminated in 1996 with a five-year strategic plan for Renewal and Revitalization, which included: Strengthening existing educational programs and building new programs. Expanding into untapped markets by building an international education capability to deliver core education programs to new audiences. Increasing capacity to provide continuing professional education to professional communities and to the general public. Expanding the service-based capacity of CSPP to provide service and training to entire communities, organizations, and individuals.

212

The plan underscored the need for aggressive development of new programs to lessen the pressure in the current core programs, which would require a new and different kind of leadership than of those who had previously led CSPP (as cited in Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, November 2000). Exit John ONeil: Enter next CSPP president. In addition to the creation of a strategic plan, and with the retirement of CSPP President John ONeil in 1997, the board hired the next CSPP president, the former president of the University of Colorado, who was to assess the strategic plan and the institutions long-term viability. Within the first year of her appointment, the new CSPP president conducted a one-year study and provided her analysis of CSPPs viability in the 21st century. She enumerated the following six strategies that CSPP should pursue to positively affect the institutional economy: 1. Expansion of programs to include the development of human service degree programs beyond those conventionally considered to be psychology; these should continue the applied focus and include both traditional and non-traditional patterns for scheduling student course work. 2. New revenue streams to reduce CSPPs dependence on tuition, including increasing fundraising, more aggressively pursuing research and extramural program sponsorship, and developing new continuing education ventures. 3. Technology enhancements to facilitate distance learning options and provide more flexible scheduling and more cost-effective administrative procedures. 4. Restructuring of management practices with an eye to achieving efficiencies and savings.

213

5. Choosing strategic partnerships to enable CSPP to leverage its assets and become a leader in areas that would be too costly to develop alone. 6. Acknowledging the university status with an appropriate name that will signal its emergence as a more broadly based institution of higher learning (Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, November 2000). In turn, the President embraced and extended [this] strategic plan (Rozhon, 2008, p. 97): The re-organization of CSPP. On June 19, 1999, the board of trustees approved a four-point resolution that authorized the president to begin implementing the plan to unify CSPP. Specifically, the board instructed the president to: Create a university composed of separate schools and/or colleges; Seek a change in WASC accreditation status to have one accredited institution rather than four separately accredited campuses; Begin feasibility and planning activities related to the new schools within the university structure; and Retain a consultant to test market potential names for a university. The president then began to restructure the autonomous, loosely affiliated, campus-based model into an integrated university with multiple program sites (Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, November 2000). She did this by eliminating the positions of campus dean and chancellor, who were responsible for the overall academic and administrative leadership on each campus, and replacing them with system-wide deans of schools in charge of academic programs for all the campuses as

214

well as the creation of a separate administrative position for director of student services on each campus. The other major element of the administrative structural reorganization involved changing the campus budgetary system by reversing the allocation of the overall university funding. Instead of allowing each campus the autonomy to control their own budgets, as they had been permitted to do since the Institutions founding, in which they would allocate a percentage off the top to the presidents office (which one CSPP faculty member referred to as paying dues), all revenues would first go directly to the central administration (i.e., the Presidents System Office) and then be dispersed among the campuses. This was a major change for the people of CSPP, most of whom had come to enjoy the independence of running their own campus and were satisfied with the previous administrations laissez-fair leadership style (Rozhon, 2008, p. 93). Consequently, the reorganization endeavor was met with much resistance. In 1999, CSPP restructured its academic programs by combining the programs from all four campuses into one university. Four academic schools were developed, and the academic programs were reorganized within these four schools, which are (a) the California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP) for clinical psychology and related areas; (b) the California School of Organizational Studies for organizational psychology and related areas; (c) a Graduate School of Education for school psychology, teacher education and related areas; and (d) a School of Social and Policy Studies for programs in forensic psychology, culture and human behavior, and community development. Within these schools, degrees were offered at the doctoral level in the areas of clinical psychology, organizational behavior, forensic psychology, health psychology,

215

school psychology, and culture and human behavior. Organizational psychology, organizational behavior, change leadership, community development, counseling psychology, school psychology, clinical psychopharmacology (postdoctoral), and psychophysiology and biofeedback were offered at the masters level. The teacher credential programs offered were: CLAD- Preliminary Multiple Subjects, BCLADSpanish Emphasis, and BCLAD- Hmong Emphasis (Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, November 2000): That diversification effort led to a broadening of who we are and what we teach. There was lots of enthusiasm for the creation of new programs and many faculty members were excited by the opportunity to have a greater reach into the world we live and the communities we serve. (Former CSPP-San Diego Faculty Member, 1999) In March of 2000, WASC approved a proposal by CSPP to unify its four separately accredited campus institutions and system office into one University structure and change its name to Alliant University as a way to publicly acknowledge its changing identity from a single-focus school to a more complex and comprehensive institution. By the time Alliant University was formed, the institution had approximately $35 million in revenue, net assets of $10.3 million, and 2,400 students (Rozhon, 2008, p. 92). Choosing the Alliant University name. The name Alliant University was established somewhat unconventionally. The CSPP board of trustees had hired a consultant to help suggest some names for the new university. The consultant provided some names, and members of the board were asked to rank the names they liked most. This was the process they all agreed on to make it fair. After the votes were tallied, Alliant rose to the top, even though this name was not anyones first choice. Because

216

everyone had agreed to follow this process, the name Alliant was chosen. Voting was done on the campuses as well, and Alliant also was not the first choice there. Another element of the reorganization plan, in the transition to a more centralized form of administrative leadership and governance, was the creation of a system-wide faculty senate and a system-wide student senate, consisting of representatives from each campus. They were charged with developing a single Faculty Handbook and a single Student Handbook for the new university system. In February 2000, shortly after this reorganization effort was underway and one month before WASC formally approved the restructuring of CSPP to Alliant University, the CSPP president received an email from the President of USIU, asking whether CSPP might be interested in exploring a potential relationship. Prior to this contact, [CSPP/Alliant University] had not considered the possibility of an acquisition or merger, nor did it have knowledge of or interest in USIU as a potential partner (Rozhon, 2008, p. 94). Intrigued by the idea, the CSPP president and the USIU president, along with CSPPs senior vice-president, met for lunch in San Francisco to discuss the idea. After some introductory conversations about the possibility of combining some of USIUs and CSPPs programs, CSPPs senior vice-president, sensing that there was something more going on, decided to broach the topic of merger. The suggestion was well-received, and the beginnings of an institutional combination between CSPP and USIU had begun. United States International University (USIU) The roots of United States International Universitys (USIU) history dates back to the original corporate charter of San Diegos first and oldest law school, Balboa Law College, with the filing with the California Secretary of State of Articles for The San

217

Diego Chiropractic College in 1924. Originally chartered as a private graduate institution, the law school began functioning as an evening program for working professionals in 1927 but then expanded to include undergraduate and other graduate studies (Dil, 2004b). The law school was closed in 1946 but was later reopened in downtown San Diego. Balboa Law College founding president: Leland Ghent Stanford, Ph.D., Ll.D. Dr. Leland Ghent Stanford founded Balboa Law College and served as president until 1946, when he resigned to become the librarian at the San Diego County Law Library. Leland G. Stanford is not related to the founder of Stanford University, although he did attend Stanford, where he earned undergraduate and law degrees in addition to M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Government Administration. In 1936, he was honored with an LL.D. degree from Thomas Jefferson in Texas. He has written two volumes about San Diego legal history, and in 1963 was commissioned by the San Diego County Bar Association to write a complete history of law and justice in San Diego County (Stanford, 1968). His community services have included directorships and active roles in the YMCA, Campfire Girls, First Methodist Church, Better Business Bureau, and the Advertising Club, and, in 1927, he founded the local Cosmopolitan Club to improve race relations. He also was instrumental in founding the local Justice Foundation, a charitable trust dedicated to improve human relations in the public field. He was appointed as the county law librarian and thereafter secured gifts of almost $200,000 to improve the library into one of the largest and finest law research centers in the world. His brother, Dwight Stanford, who had been one of the first deans, served as the next president, from 1946 to 1951. During that time, the university grew in stature, and a

218

number of new programs were established. Although the law school was closed (and then later reopened under Cal Western University), a Department of Accounting was created in response to community demand, and eventually it grew into a College of Business Administration. A Liberal Arts program was later established, followed by an exceptional School of Music and a non-sectarian School of Religion. Dwight Stanford earned his bachelors degree in American history in 1936 from San Diego State College (now called San Diego State University) and later gave SDSU an endowment, which established The Dwight E. Stanford Chair in American Foreign Relations. In 1950, Dwight Stanford was succeeded as president by Robert M. Griffin. The Point Loma campus. In June 1952, Balboa University became affiliated with the Southern California Methodist Conference, changed its name to California Western University (Cal Western) and expanded its campus from its single building in Cabrillo Hall to occupy 97 acres of the previous Lomaland, (a Theosophical community) calling the campus Loma del Mar, meaning Hill by the Sea. Admiral Frederick C. Sherman, U.S. Navy, ret., served as chairman of the board of trustees. The university built extensively on the Lomaland site in the 1960s and did not keep alive the architectural traditions of the theosophists. San Diego Modernist Richard Dick John Lareau was the architect who largely developed the master plans and construction of the Cal Western Point Loma and later USIU Scripps Ranch campus. The time period of 1935-1970 was a time when art deco and humanist expressions of modernism found in minimal, no-frills traditional style interpretation emerged in San Diego as an indirect response to the Great Depression (State of California Office of Historic Preservation, 2007). On the Cal Western campus, Lareau built the mens

219

dormitory (1960); the womens dormitory (1962); the dining hall, gymnasium, and Ryan Library (1962); the Boney Hall Science Building (1967); and the Fine Arts and Music Building (1969). On the USIU campus, Lareau built the Fletcher Hall administrative buildings, the Walter Library and Learning Resource Center, the Daley Hall Science Building, the Zable and Green lecture halls, and the academic classroom cluster (1970) (Modern San Diego, 2010). California Western University. Cal Western was established as a traditional liberal arts university and offered undergraduate and some graduate studies. In June of 1952, Dr. William C. Rust, formerly head of the religious education department and an associate professor of religion at the University of Denver, was named executive dean. In November, with the retirement of President Griffin, Dr. William Rust became President. Dr. Rust announced that the university would be formed into three colleges: Business, Liberal Arts, and a Community College (Pourade, 1977). Its future course as an institution was set in the path originally taken by the University of Southern California (USC), where Rust had previously taught and earned his Ph.D. in Religious Studies, but would be a Methodist-supported institution via the Southern California Methodist Conference. There were expectations that many new buildings on the campus would bear the names of those who donated money to build them (Pourade, 1977). The first major brochure published in 1953 contained two concepts of the University: (a) an international concept, and (b) a concept with an emphasis on human behavior as a basis of developing a new kind of leadership (Dil, 2004b). The university was accredited by WASC in 1956. In 1960, the law school, which had been reopened downtown, was relocated back to Point Loma in Rohn Hall. That year, the law school

220

had 6 full-time faculty and 23 students. In 1962, the law school was accredited by the American Bar Association and, in 1967, became a member of the Association of American Law Schools (California Western School of Law, 2009). During Dr. Rusts tenure as Cal Western president, he developed the idea of United States International University because he believed in building an international multi-campus university for intercultural, global education because the world is too small for anything less (Dill, 2004b, p. 41, footnote 21). In 1965, the university received a federal land grant of a former Marine Corps training base known as Camp Elliott, located in the Scripps Ranch area of San Diego. Construction was started on the new campus in 1968, and classes began in 1969. In 1965, the board of trustees of Cal Western created a new corporate entity named United States International University (USIU). In 1967, USIU and Cal Western merged, and the corporation was named USIU. They focused on developing as an international, intercultural, and interdisciplinary university with an emphasis on leadership and universal human values. The San Diego campus was inaugurated in 1968, followed by overseas campuses in London for Europe; Nairobi for Africa; and in Mexico City for Latin America (Dil, 2004a, p. 207). USIU had campuses throughout the United States and abroad, including Hawaii (Maunaolu campus in Maui); Colorado (Colorado Alpine campus in Steamboat Springs); USIU-Europe (England; first the Dropmore Park campus in Buckinghamshire, then the Ashdown Park Bushey campus outside London near Sussex in Watford); USIU-Africa ( Nairobi, Kenya); USIU-Asia (Tokyo, Japan Learning Center); USIU-Central America (Universidad Internacionale de Mexico campus in Mexico City); as well as campuses in France, Canada, Guam, and Palau in Micronesia (Dil, 2004b). During the late 1980s and

221

early 1990s, the international campuses were closed, with the exception of the Nairobi and Mexico City campuses. Graduate centers were opened throughout California in San Jose, Chula Vista, Irvine, Escondido, and Glendale, and the university had alliances in northern Baja California, Russia, China, and Korea (San Diego Business Wire, 2000). The USIU campuses (San Diego, Irvine, Nairobi, and Mexico City) were and still are WASC accredited. In 1990, USIU had 1,800 students on its San Diego campus and 3,300 worldwide (Granberry, 1990). The institutional colors were Columbia Blue, Sun Gold, and White. USIU. In 1965, the university received a federal land grant for a new campus in the Scripps Ranch area of San Diego, and construction began in 1968. The Scripps Ranch campus became known as USIU Elliott, and the Point Loma campus was called USIU-Cal Western until the last graduation was held in 1973. The Point Loma property was subsequently sold to Point Loma College, formerly Pasadena College, for $25 million, as USIU had been struggling financially (Austin, 1972). The San Diego campuses were then consolidated on the 160-acre Scripps Ranch campus. Point Loma College, now known as Point Loma Nazarene University (PLNU), still occupies the 97acre Point Loma site and recently celebrated its institutional centennial (Point Loma Nazarene University, 2009). In later years, under the leadership of Dr. Dwane Little, Professor of History, PLNU attempted to preserve the history of the site by restoring some of the historical buildings and landmarks as well as incorporating theosophical architectural elements such as flattened arches and open-air stairways into some of the newer buildings. The

222

Spalding House also was restored in the naturalist/moralist tradition of its time (Kennedy, 2010). In 1975, after negotiations fell through to merge with the University of California at San Diego (UCSD), California Western School of Law, which had retained its name after the USIU merger, moved to the first of its three downtown campus buildings and ended its affiliation with USIU to become an independent law school (Davidson, 1984). George Gafford, Professor and now Chairman of Cal Western School of Law, recalled the experience of ending ties with USIU: When the United States International University was in deep financial trouble, I devised and executed a plan to have a new non-profit corporation purchase the California Western School of Law from its failing parent university by assuming some of USIUs debt and giving it a note for the balance, saving [Cal Western School of Law] as a solvent and independent fully accredited first-rate law school. (George Gafford Offers a Lifetime of Law, 2009) Today, Cal Western Law School is thriving in its downtown urban location and, in 2000, opened a state-of-the art law library (California Western School of Law, 2009). USIUs unique programs and mission: A small university with a big dream. United States International University, whose brief and remarkable life was intertwined with many of the major humanistic thinkers of the second half of the twentieth century, was, in many ways, ahead of its time (Thorp, 2004, p. 23). USIU was established to emphasize areas of human concern and leadership (Dil, 2004b, p. 59). The University had a threefold purpose: (a) to permeate all study with high ideals; (b) to develop leadership qualities; and (c) to provide specialized courses and professional study. The purpose also included emphasis upon the growth of the individual: to develop the ability to think clearly and rationally; to suspend judgments until the facts are in; to make

223

decisions; to accept responsibility; and to discover and utilize a philosophy of life, which will lead to increased personal worth and more adequate human relations (Cannon, as cited in Dil, 2004a). USIU recruited students from all over the world and brought them together to live and learn in an international and multicultural higher education community. In 1997, USIU was ranked number one in U.S. News & World Report as having the largest proportion of international students in the country. President Rusts dream was: a truly international university focusing [mostly] on post-graduate education for intercultural understanding, cooperation, and development for peaceful coexistence and a better future for all in the emerging One-World. [T]he vision of USIU [was] to develop a global network of international campuses with headquarters in San Diego, to produce new kinds of transformational leaders with intercultural minds brought together from around the world for post-graduate studies and research under the guidance of internationally respected scholars. (Dil, 2007, p. 14) Although President Rust was largely responsible for developing the idea and vision of USIU as a bold, innovative experiment in higher education (Rubel, as cited in Dil, 2004c, p. 351), many other visionary thinkers, teachers, and scholars also contributed to the formulation of that vision. One such professor, Dr. Lasswell, drafted a number of think papers and essays elaborating on his vision of a World University [which] would continue the historic commitment to the advancement of knowledge [as well as] emphasize interdisciplinary fields where international cooperation would be most promising and would explore the social consequences and policy implications of knowledge with both an interplay with the social environment and tasks appropriate to any problem-solving activity, e.g., hunger, poverty, or environmental pollution. (Dil, 2004a, p. 215) USIU had big dreams but was a small institution, with approximately 3,000 students. Its small size allowed for a close, tight-knit campus community and culture.

224

One student remarked, USIU is not an institution, it is a community (Gemmill, 1998, p. 2). USIU offered a promise and a reality of intercultural and interdisciplinary education for a better tomorrow rooted in universal values like affection, respect, and responsibility, while accommodating diverse cultural values by upholding the principle of Unity in Diversity and Diversity in Unity across Cultures (Dil, 2004a, p. 198). President Rust stated: The history of USIU shows that it has been at the creative frontier in higher education. While avoiding the kookiness that has been attendant upon much of what has been considered to be in the advanced guard of higher education, USIU has set humanness, personal growth, and aspiration as its central theme, in addition to the how-tos and vocational goals. The University is preparing its graduates for real roles in real life, in those areas of greatest importance for our societys leadership in human affairs. The road is not well-defined, but it is far more exciting; for the students, for the faculty, for the University, and for the future. (Rust, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 55) A former student, now alumnus, stated: The short, but shining history of USIU deserves to be made known around the globe; both as a history of ideas defining and upholding the torch of international and intercultural education for a world of mutual understanding rooted in universal human values, as well as some important lessons that can be learned from its financial and other problems threatening many institutions of higher education not only in the United States, also in other countries around the world. (Dymally, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 198) USIU could be described as a uniquely and deliberately founded institution with what President Rust called an impossible dream based on a vision of creating a place where people from all over the world could come together, learn from each other, and live in harmony (Dil, 2004b, p. 55). This was a place where ideas could be exchanged, not for the purpose of deciding who or what was right or wrong, but rather to engage people of diverse origins, cultures, and backgrounds so they could discover that there are

225

more similarities than differences among people of the world when they experience a spirit of togetherness. In other words, by bringing these people together, the goal was not necessarily to arrive at a conclusion, but instead to open oneself up to the possibilities of discovering the unknown, achieved through opening up the mind. (Dil, 2004b). This was done by creating a community that valued internationalism, broad multiculturalism, critical thought, and a balanced humane education (Thorp, 2004, p. 24). Further, Professor Thorp stated: We were, at USIU, a microcosm of the world, replete with mysterious languages, histories, and habits. And it was across all those borders that we spoke together and learned. Our sustaining vision was to tug the worlds values toward ours. We were never perfect, nor will the world be, but for those of us at USIU, it may be as far as we will ever reach. (p. 26) USIU had many programs in many disciplines at the bachelors, masters, and doctoral levels on its campuses in San Diego, Nairobi, Mexico City, and London, and its graduate center in Orange County. The university offered four doctoral degrees: Ph.D., Psy.D., D.B.A., and Ed.D. USIUs D.B.A. program on the San Diego campus was the first and only DBA offered in California, as well as the western U.S. when it began in the 1970s. The Strategic Management program established by Distinguished Professor, Igor Ansoff, who was known as the father of strategic management, also was unique to USIU (Dil, 2004c, p. 409). The College of Arts and Sciences offered degree programs through three departments: Education, Global Liberal Studies, and Psychology and Family Studies. The bachelors degree programs included Communications, English, Elementary Education, Environmental Studies, International Relations, Liberal Studies, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

226

(TESOL). Five masters degree programs were offered: Counseling Psychology, Education, Industrial/Organizational (I/O) Psychology, International Relations, and Marriage and Family Therapy (MFT). Seven doctoral degree programs were offered: Clinical Psychology, Educational Leadership, Industrial/Organizational (I/O) Psychology, Marriage and Family Therapy (MFT), Organizational Development (OD), Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), and Technology and Learning. The Department of Education offered four credential programs and three certificate programs, and the Department of Psychology and Family Studies offered six certificate programs. The College of Business Administration offered five bachelors degree programs: Business Administration, International Business Administration, Hotel and Restaurant Management, Tourism Management, Information Systems and Technology (IST), and Management. Masters degree programs were offered in Business Administration (MBA) and International Business Administration (MIBA). The doctoral program in Business Administration (DBA) offered concentrations in Strategic Management and International Business, which had specializations in Finance and Marketing. Certificate programs were offered in Strategic Management and a Global Logistics Specialist Certificate. USIUs Kenya campus in Nairobi offered many of these same programs as well as an undergraduate program in Journalism and business concentrations in Accounting, Integrated Studies, and Marketing. It also offered many of these same programs at the masters level as well as a program in Management and Organizational Development. USIUs Mexico City campus also offered most of the same programs as San Diego as

227

well as the addition of Latin American studies at the undergraduate level and Management and Organizational Development and Integrated Studies at the masters level. USIUs Orange County center offered graduate programs in Education and Psychology and Family Studies. The London campus also had many of these programs until it was closed in 1993. USIUs School of Visual and Performing Arts (SVPA) on the San Diego campus housed a theater (now known as Scripps Ranch Theater), theater troupe, ballet company, and international symphony orchestra, which was the only symphony in San Diego for many years. President Rust, with the help of his wife, Rosemarie Rust, was able to recruit a number of internationally acclaimed directors and artists as teachers, including Richard Carter (who later founded the San Diego Ballet Company), Gordon Hilker (Artistic Director of International Festivals), Zoltan Rozsyani (famous music director and later the Conductor of the San Diego Symphony Orchestra), and Jon Hart (who had danced with Dame Margot Fonteyn and became the Assistant Director of the Royal Ballet of England; Dil, 2004b). Unfortunately, the running of the program was financially straining for such a small school and created many of the fiscal pressures that put the institution in financial jeopardy. Eventually, the program was forced to close. However, many students of the SVPA were given full scholarships, some of whom went on to have successful acting careers. President Rust believed that both the SVPA and the School of Leadership and Human Behavior deserve to be recognized among the best in the United States (Rust, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 57). The School of Leadership and Human Behavior was an

228

unusual development in higher education and probably the most unique program at USIU (Rust, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 58). The school attracted many students as well as internationally respected thought leaders and best-selling authors of various fields, who served as distinguished faculty, including Drs. Abraham Maslow, Ashley Montagu, Norman Cousins, Max Lerner, Carl Rogers, and Viktor Frankl. Interdisciplinary, humanistic, and creative approaches were used to teach leadership and address world problems. The School of Leadership and Human Behavior ultimately represented what USIU sought to achieve: to implant in its students the idea and vision of universal humanism and world peace; students then could take with them what they learned and experienced at USIU as leaders in the world. On describing the School of Leadership and Human Behavior, President Rust stated: Its central purpose is to educate leaders within free societies around the world. Such a task calls for out-of-the-ordinary people and programs. The concentration is upon humanistic processes in the study of both humanity and the individual. Only a truly interdisciplinary and creative approach to leadership problems could carry out this challenge. The University wishes to reach the essence of humanity everywhere in significant ways that help transform and uplift humankind. The School of Human Behavior concentrates on educational and research activities where people from diverse cultures come together to search for meaning and value. The program is oriented in an interdisciplinary approach to man as a valuing, learning, communicating being. The School of Human Behavior attempts to influence a significant number of potential leaders to revitalize the cultures in which they function. Further, it is developing a concept of interculturethat area of communication where people meet on common ground of species-wide and universalist concerns. Major academic programs in the School lead to the Ph.D. (Rust, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 58) In addition, Rucker (2004) stated: There had been none like it before. Born out of earlier attempts to initiate doctoral programs in Education and Psychology, the new school sought to place

229

emphasis on leadership, drawing from any and all fields of knowledge and perhaps most significantly, presenting living models of recognized leadership. None of the then existing academic programs combined these two strategies: namely, to offer a doctoral program unifying several fields, which could contribute content forming the broad field of Human Behavior; and to make faculty, visiting faculty, and otherwise great men and women of the present generation, exemplify by bringing their unique creative ideas to campus and continue to create their own greatness out of their transactions with USIU students. USIU thus became a dynamic think tank benefiting the social disciplines represented in the broad field of Human Behavior. (p. 80) The general guidelines for research papers at USIU required a clear focus on the themes of the course as well as what was defined in the USIU catalog as: (a) exploration of the humanistic process of learning and therapy (in the sense of leaning toward a healthy and self-actualizing life; (b) the implication for innovation in personal, institutional, and societal strategies; (c) what it means to be human; and (d) analysis of models of great people as indications of human potential. The students had the choice to cover any one, or a combination, of these dimensions, as exemplified in the life and work of a transformational leader (Dil, 2004a). USIU also published a scholarly journal called USIU Doctoral Society Journal that was written, edited, and peer-reviewed by doctoral students and faculty who came from all of USIUs various schools, colleges, and programs. In terms of educational format, group projects and presentations were central components to most programs, in which students would be placed in teams of diverse individuals and would work on a project together so that they could gain real experience working with people from all over the world. Nearly every course included facilitated class discussions to create an interactive dialog and environment for learning. The reason for this is, as one former USIU professor/administrator stated:

230

human development occurs through dialogue (italics added by author). For United States International University, dialogue was the vision. Of course, it was not perfectly achieved. We professors have much to learn about listening as well as speaking. But the USIU vision and structure required dialogue, and, thus, it was attained more richly and reliably. The dialogue across national boundaries, across languages and cultures, among faculty and among students and across all lines necessitated listening, necessitated responsive dialogue or we could not have reached sufficient mutual understanding even to complete registration. The necessity drove our society into the net of our own goals; we proclaimed the value of intercultural, international understanding, and the necessities of dialogue drove us into its achievement. The effects of this dialogic society were those I now understand as predictable: not only greater understanding, but greater respects; not only greater respects, but its consequence; greater shared activity, and its consequence; greater inter-subjectivity and mutual concern. [I]t is the students, who will for many decades, carry forward the development of that dialogue. (Thorp, 2004, p. 25) The Mission Statement of United States International University reads as follows: The Universitys mission is to promote the discovery and application of knowledge, the acquisition of skills, and the development of intellect and character in a manner which prepares students to contribute effectively as citizens of a changing and increasingly technological world. This mission is achieved through selected high quality undergraduate and graduate academic programs which result in the following outcomes: Higher Order Thinking: the ability to collect, analyze, and evaluate information and to formulate conclusions. Students develop and demonstrate the ability to think critically, analytically, and creatively. Literacy: competence in oral, written, quantitative, and technological skills. Students develop and demonstrate competency in oral and written communication as well as demonstrate scientific, quantitative, and technological literacy. Global Understanding and Multicultural Perspective: awareness, knowledge, and appreciation of both the diversity and commonality of cultures. Students acquire these perspectives through formal study of languages, history, literature, and the arts and through working, studying, and living cooperatively in a racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse environment. Further, students acquire an understanding of economic, historical, political, geographic, and environmental relationships on a global basis. Preparedness for Career: mastery of a field of knowledge and its multicultural and multinational application. Such mastery is accomplished through both formal study and various experiential forms of learning such as internships and field

231

experiences. As part of their growth and development, students formulate and articulate the ethical standards which will guide their professional and personal lives. Community Service: a sense of being part of a community and a desire to be of service to it. Students are given opportunities to participate in community service, citizenship, or social action projects or activities. This mission is carried out in an environment which encourages intellectual and scholarly development; fosters openness to a wide range of ideas, cultures, and people; and enhances personal growth. In describing the universitys mission, one student said, The USIU mission was simple: Bring people from different nationalities and cultures together and challenge them to learn together (Abu-Rahma, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 166). Another student, in speaking about the mission, said: While walking the streets in Apia, Western Samoa, I came across a yellow jeep marked with the Rotary International symbol and a Polio Plus. All of a sudden the international in USIU hit me. The reason and mission of USIU became clear. We are all part of the larger humanity, dedicated to the better life and health and support of our fellow humans throughout the world. Just as Polio Plus is dedicated to the eradication of the childhood disease throughout the world, USIU is dedicated to the eradication of ignorance of one anothers cultures. Dr. William C. Rust, the Founding President of United States International University, indeed had established the vision of a global society united in knowledge. (Bishop, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 171) USIUs institutional identity. The institutional identity of USIU consisted of both an international and domestic, or American, frame of reference. One student spoke of the USIU name as a concept: What is in a name? Everything! With a name like United States International University one cannot go wrong. The United States represents the national perspective and the International highlights the global dimensions. (Taylor, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 154) The type of students that USIU attracted were, in large majority, those whose values corresponded with the universitys mission. The students who decided to attend

232

USIU were those willing to experience a university life where they would be surrounded by diverse people who are different from themselves: people from different countries who had different cultures and spoke different languages. One student said: Many come from all over the country and the world to attend USIU, leaving behind family and friends. They come unknowingly to a place where everything and everyone is different. Though the differences may be great in some areas, students manage to bond with one another and build a kind of family. The people at USIU are people of character and most importantly of blindness to the overall significance of color, background, religion, culture, or lifestyle. That is what USIU is all about. The diverse student body stands to gather as a whole, as a family, as one. (Alfaro, 1994, p. 7) Global understanding was both a value and a goal of USIU in preparing its students for leadership roles in a global society. USIU staff members in the Center for International Studies (CIS) stated, As the world grows inevitably closer together, it is essential that people throughout the globe strive to understand one another. In fact, the future of the human race may depend upon this reality. The time has come to emphasize cooperation over conflict in addressing the worlds numerous problems. Most of the hostilities that erupt around the world between opposing forces could be prevented if mankind would take the time to understand, appreciate, and accept his or her neighbor. Now, more than ever, we need to draw upon diversity to seek innovative solutions to global challenges in the next century and beyond. (Bernardini, Ahmad, & McGowan, 1993, p. 15) A letter titled The Way We Are, written by a group of USIU gay and lesbian students, known as U.S.-I.G.L.U., reflects an underlying identity held by many of the students, faculty, staff, and administrators at USIU: This is a university which brings different cultures together. This is a university which brings different people together. We are people from all over the world who have decided to get to know others who are different and accept and appreciate them for the way they are. We are open-minded with a strong desire for understanding and being sensitive to those who are different; we are international. To be an international student also means that one has to take responsibility for and accept that some things in the world are not understood and are not known. The generations of today are breaking through old prejudices and

233

stereotypical thinking. At this university people are not judged by their color, their nationality, their ethnicity, their religion, or their sexual orientation because, in our eyes, we are all the same. Whether she goes to church every Sunday or whether he prays facing Mecca, we are all the same. Regardless of spiritual belief or sexual orientation, our senses and our feelings are all the same. We all laugh; we all cry; we all love; and we all hurt. We are all the same even if we are all different. (U.S.-I.G.L.U., 1991, p. 2) USIUs commitment to respecting and being open to diverse cultures, ideas, lifestyles, and people represents a humanistic ideology or a belief that all humans and human life is valuable and should, at the very least, be respected, no matter how different people are. If treated this way, as equals in an egalitarian society, people have more opportunities to learn and grow simply by knowing others who are different and being receptive to those differences as opposed to judging or discriminating based on differences. The fundamental philosophy of life at USIU was to create a community dedicated to peace and understanding by instilling universal human values that are blind to individual human differences. That which designates us as human beings is the ultimate concern for all and that is the central theme of our University. Man does not live by bread alone. The great ideals of the past unite with the desire for a better future to give us a persistent urge onward. (Dil, 2004b, p. 41) Governance and administrative structure. USIUs board of trustees consisted of 12 members, 11 voting and one ex officio, although the bylaws allowed for up to 15 members with stipulations on the election process. To comply with Mexican, English, and Kenyan law, USIU campuses were incorporated in those countries. The boards for those campuses comprised a subset of the USIU board of trustees. Three Kenyans from the board of directors of USIU-Africa served as trustees of USIU.

234

The administrative structure at USIU followed a traditional model, where the president was the chief executive officer and was directly responsible to the board of trustees. Vice-presidents for Development, Finance and Administration, and Enrollment Management and Student Services, Deans, and Department Chairs assisted the president in the overall administration of the university. Executive directors of the campuses in Mexico City and Nairobi (called Vice-Chancellor, in accordance with Kenyan law) were responsible for the day-to-day administration of those campuses and reported directly to the president. Each campus developed its own separate budget that was submitted to its respective campus board (Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, November 2000). It was important for the university community that USIU: operates as a democratic organization in which everyone pulls in the same direction under a leader who respects the rights and ideas of participants, students, faculty, and supporting staff. There ultimately is no place for personality cults in the learning process. Quite to the contrary, they usually show learning by creating blind spots leading to mistakes and tragedies. (Rucker, 2004, p. 82) A USIU-Cal Western Professor and Administrator, who worked to create a philosophy for the Universitys Administration, stated: By philosophy I mean the integration of ethics and action, which together create growth and vitality and prevent erosion and decay. Administration in the broadest sense is a process by which the energies, resources, talents, and efforts of people in association are integrated toward achieving desired goals. Goals (ends) and processes (methods) are inseparable. Each in a large measure determines the other. In learning and in human growth, goals are concomitant results of the dynamic process. Those qualities sought in objectives must be characteristic of the process. The concept that administration is a moral act and the administrator is a moral agent was supported by Ordway Tead years ago. First and primary must be the regard for persons. It is a crime against an individual to rob him of his basic dignity. To do so is to demoralize him and to destroy his capacities for full performance. One of the most delicate things confronted by administration in the developing and maintaining of the creative learning climate is the use of power and authority. Administration is that aspect of the authority structure which is given the assignment to achieve the goals of the institution as expressed by the governing board or the Board of Trustees. This means that administrators

235

are responsible for action and results. There is no alibi when confronted with this mandate. It is not the use of power and authority, but its abuse that often has a negative effect upon the institutional climate. The appointed leader has the task of acquiring the qualities and strengths of an elected leader. It is my assumption that if an institution expects to operate at an optimum level it must have policies and procedures whereby every individual and group capable of making a contribution can do so. This, of course, necessitates a supportive process and a receptive climate. Structure must never become an end in itself. Should it do so it becomes an obstruction and not an asset to the performance of the institution. A university committed to achieving greatness, relevance to human need and quality must be focused on ethical values essential to the common human good. (Cannon, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 68) Although this philosophy was followed by many at USIU, it was the violation of this philosophy by President Rust and his administrative team that ultimately caused the universitys decline during the late 1970s and 1980s and collapse in the early 1990s. This was one of the glaring weaknesses of the university at the time. USIU could have received much from students and alumni, but the top administrators at the time were ill-disposed to take the hand of assistance out of fear that they might lose control. Had they been more open and inclusive, had they shared their burdens and given up a small measure of control, the problems that we faced would have been largely resolved. (Hernandez, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 112) Presidents and administrators who came after Rust was forced out of the presidency were said to have done a much better job of following this prescribed administrative philosophy. USIU founding president: William C. Rust, Ph.D. Dr. William C. Rust (19161993) was the first president of Cal Western University and, later, the founding president of USIU. Records show that Rust also was an executive dean at Balboa University before the university became affiliated with the Southern California Methodist Conference and was renamed Cal Western. Rust earned his bachelors degree from DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana, and his Ph.D. from the University of

236

Southern California (USC). Rust had a teaching background in the fields of Education, the Humanities, Religious Education, and Comparative Religions and at one time was a Methodist minister (McCann, 1993a, pp. 1, 13). He served on the faculty of USC and Denver University before he was appointed as president of Cal Western, where he developed his vision for USIU (Dil, 2004b, p. 41, footnote 21), which embraced a world mission, pursued a dream of unity among diverse people, and offered students a distinctive education that included exposure to great minds and a broad rather than narrowly focused curriculum (Lauer & Lauer, 2004, p. 84). President Rusts vision for USIU was that it would play a leading role in global understanding and goodwill. The leadership which comes from a university like this is expected to have an impact on the local and worldwide community in the years that follow (President Rust, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 41). In one of President Rusts university convocations, he noted the ideals held by USIU and its innovative originality. Being innovative isnt easy. When the University was adopting its innovative international approach to education, international was a dirty word. USIU began its focus on the human factor in education at a time when other universities were focusing on the hard sciences and today USIUs innovative ideas are being heralded by the educational establishment. With USIU as a leading example, we are going to develop a world where people can live together in peace. (University Convocation, 1989, p. 1) USIU was founded during a time when: Eisenhower was elected President, Nixon was accused of graft and made his famous Checkers speech, the first H-bomb was exploded, thousands of Americans and Koreans died in the Korean War, Joe McCarthy became Republican hatchet man and began his infamous blacklists, and television had invaded 21 million homes. An interesting year to launch a tolerant, peace-loving, multicultural university dedicated to educating people to a world view of another. (First Impressions, 1989, p. 3).

237

A USIU-Cal Western faculty member/administrator also spoke of this time period in history: We remember the mid-sixties as a time of fright, turmoil, and destruction on a number of university and college campuses. Young adults were fighting the older adult world that was ordering them into a war, the validity of which the majority of adult citizens seriously doubted. The adult society seemed to be failing its youth. As Provost, I proceeded on the assumption that success [of the University] would depend on [the] ability to develop a sense of personal pride in and commitment to achieving a high quality educational community by all individuals and constituencies of the College. (Cannon, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 69) In addition, Meyer stated: California Western University grew into United States International University with the same general emphasis on teaching and learning interrelationships. USIU was founded on new and different post-war ideas about international and intercultural concepts supported by appropriate, capable teaching of considerable diversity in terms of personal and professional interests and approaches. (Meyer, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 105) In the words of President Rust: A university is primarily the gathering together of excellent teachers and qualified students in an atmosphere where they may interact with one another to develop understanding. It is a community where the learning process includes not only acquiring academic training, but also developing the skills of individual and group living that are mandatory if the academic training is actually be implemented. (Rust, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 41). One student, now alumnus, stated, In the classroom, you had to exchange information on diverse customs, traditions, rituals, and so forth; the professors would make sure you did not miss an opportunity to acquire a taste for knowing them. But it was outside the classroom, sitting at a cafeteria table or in the laundry room that you had to practice in order to build relationships across borders. (Caroppo, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 161) Another student, now alumnus, stated: I believe USIU was educating students to become citizens of the world. During the time I was at USIU it was impossible to do otherwise. I can remember many encounters with international students out of class and how their views gave us all

238

perspectives we could not have gained from our readings or discussions in class. (Hernandez, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 112) In other words, living on campus, interacting and socializing outside of the classroom, and getting involved in extra- and co-curriculars were equally important for learning, understanding, mutual respect, appreciation, leadership, and personal growth to be achieved by students. Often, people truly get to know each other in informal settings, such as parties, extracurricular events/activities, and social gatherings, as opposed to formalized arrangements, such as classes and meetings. Personal growth and development was achieved both in and outside the classroom. Experiences in interacting with others who are different was what led most to achieve that growth. University and campus cultures. Like CSPP, USIU had its own university culture and individual campus cultures. On describing USIUs culture, one student said: At USIU, I discovered a unique culture: one that is made up of a community of diverse cultures. The students, faculty, and staff of U.S. International University were all infused with the same goals and objectives which held an underlying purpose: to understand differences in order to achieve unity. This University had a culture that truly valued diversity. At USIU I learned about differences in the world and the similarities that we all share. Nowhere else would I have had such an opportunity to see and experience this for myself. The colors, races, cultures, religions, lifestyle, ideas, and philosophies I was exposed to at USIU have accentuated my life and impermeated my being, making me a different person, a whole person. I fully identify with how USIU sees the worldas one. No other school could match this Universitys culture and its impact upon people who experience it. It really does change who you are and how you see the world. It (USIU) becomes a part of you forever. For many of us this became our home and our family and we will always think of it that way. As students, we take with us the memories and lessons of what we collectively experienced: an opening of our hearts and minds to the importance and value of diversity. (Student, as cited in Dawson, 2003, p. 2) As mentioned, each of the campuses of USIU (San Diego, London, Mexico City, and Africa) had its own unique campus culture and student life. The following section

239

describes life on each campus by various students, faculty, and administrators who were located on these campuses. USIU-San Diego Scripps Ranch campus. Many students who lived in the dorms said that the USIU campus was like summer camp. Other students described the campus atmosphere as homey, and people there felt close, like a family (First Impressions, 1990, p. 3). A former professor referred to the campus as a lovely resortlike setting of eucalyptus trees (Rubel, as cited in Dil, 2004c, p. 351). One student, recalling her first time on campus, said: I remember vividly my first trip to USIU. Upon entering the main gate, the twolane road, known as the Avenue of Nations, was lined with colorful national flags. It felt like a genuine welcoming gesture on the part of the University to invite me to its multicultural campus. As I drove by, I tried to identify some of the flags, and this little activity already made me a part of this university. I joined the Masters program in Technology and Learning (Education) in the fall of 1999. It was the first step towards my dream of not just becoming a world citizen, but also learning to educate others towards the same path of intercultural understanding and goodwill. I knew then that my time at USIU was going to be intellectually and personally stimulating. (Satya, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 179) Another student said, USIUs campus is almost like a paradise nestled amongst eucalyptus trees, serene, a quasi-nature preserve. I would pass by the campus just to breathe the fresh air, and I always felt safe and at home (McCann, 1991, p. 2). The small size of the campus seems to have been a positive factor for many students. One student said that she choose USIU because, It was small, so [she] wouldnt feel lost in a sea of unknown faces that [she] would meet and maybe never see again. [She] liked the size because its comfortable. Another student stated: selected USIU as [her] school of choice because it was a private university and, therefore, smaller. [She] knew that as a private university, the class-size would be small so the one-to-one dialogue between professors and students would be more meaningful. When students can dialogue freely and develop some close

240

relationships with professors, the learning experience is more fruitful and intellectually and personally satisfying. [She] found this to be true. (Anderson, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 144) Another student said that she liked the quiet, secluded environment of the campus (Bryce, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 120). The institutions small size also allowed for community discussions and dialogue. Town hall meetings were frequently organized by the president and administration for discussions among the universitys various constituencies to bring these groups together in an open forum for dialogue so that university members could be informed on university matters and share their input. USIU also had a judicial board comprised of students, staff, faculty, and administrators to make important decisions on enhancing the Collegiate Life Community (Envoy, 1993, p. 6). Another student said, Walking from one class to another, one could hear at least six to ten different languages spoken (Antoniou, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 118). USIU-Europe London campus. A student of the USIU-E London campus stated: Since the campus was situated in Watford, right outside London, it gave an additional flair to life. It was, indeed, a United Nations island in the midst of England. Locals were surprised to see the different nationalities coming and going; quite diverse. It was there that I was asked to be a godfather, there that I bought my first car, which I eventually sold to a Turkish student, and there that I was introduced to the best shish kebab I have ever tasted. (Antoniou, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 118) Another student who attended the London campus said: My first recollection was one of awe and disbelief. The campus was magnificent. One would swear it to have been built during the reign of Elizabeth Rex, with beautiful stone walls, flying buttresses, enormous greens and its own pond. It was located in the New Forest about fifty miles south of London off the main motorway to Brighton. The closest town was Forest Row, which was the home of A. A. Milne (the English author of the childrens classic Winnie-the-Pooh). Therefore, I am quite sure Christopher Robin romped in our woods. Hence, we

241

described our location as being in Winnie the Pooh Forest. (Thorn, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 99) Another student of the London campus spoke of the campus culture: USIU in London became my window to the world. Students there were from many different countries and cultures. How different and yet how similar! We all became friends. Was it because we were away from home? I dont know, but a bond was established among us. What a wonderful, colorful, and breathtakingly beautiful group. I was discovering beautiful people and experiencing the history and cultures of the world through the eyes and minds of my fellow students and professors. I was sailing around the world without a boat. We learned so much from each other. We accepted and respected our differences. All of our cultural differences, small and large, did not really matter. The more important thing was who would win at pool table. In a classroom of, say, twenty-five students you would find around twenty cultures represented. Our professors encouraged us to open our minds and share. International and intercultural understanding was not just a theory, it was practiced. No matter what topic we were studying- accounting, finance, or business law- our questions and discussions were often directed to multiculturalism. It is done this way in my country, one would say and she or he would describe the difference. Another student from a different country would share his or her countrys perspective and the professor would add to the discussion. The learning dynamics were extraordinarily challenging and stimulating. (Abu-Rahma, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 165) A professor stated: Many believe that there are insurmountable differences in culture, ethnicity, and geography separating people. But while watching a group of children from around the world, including my two daughters, laugh and play together on the expansive lawns of USIU London, I wonder if the differences adults perceive are real or imagined. (Miller, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 186) USIU-Mexico City campus. A former professor and administrator at the USIU campus in Mexico City described the campus as a small, tight-knit community of citizens where everyone feels like part of a family. Staff and faculty always try to put students first to ensure that all their needs are met. Academic programs can be tailored to each individual student.

242

The curriculum is not static. Learning Contracts are written on a variety of subjects to meet student needs. The activity program makes it possible for students to earn credit for working in community service organizations offcampus. Libraries, museums, and archeological sites are visited in order to take advantage of the local resources. Anthropology courses are taught at the Anthropological Museum. Local speakers are invited to the Campus to present lectures on the rich Mexican cultural heritage. The fact that several of the parttime staff have been some of the most outstanding teachers in Mexico has been helpful in carrying the USIU vision to all of Latin America. (Dil, 2004b, p. 50) One student wrote an article in the Envoy student newspaper on Mexico City and the USIU-Mexico City campus: Being the most densely populated city in the world, Mexico D.F., as it is called by most, is the cultural center of Mexico. Built on the ancient Aztec capital of Tenochititlan, Mexico City boasts such attractions from historical museums with art and artifacts from around the world, modern downtown nightclubs, bars and restaurants, ancient pyramids of Teotihuacan, and famous cathedrals from the 16th and 17th centuries. This vast city of millions is spread over a diameter of 40 kilometers. From within, one can find a rich cultural society of traditions, ancient ruins, contemporary arts, entertainment, and a look at history through its beautiful story-telling architecture. [E]ast of D.F. is one of the top vacation destinations in the world: the Yucatan peninsula, which is home to many resort hot spots such as Cancun, Cozumel, and Playa Del Carmen. Almost every destination in Mexico is filled with friendly hospitality, natural beauty, unique culture and heritage, and astounding diversity and history. (Fordyce, 2002b, p. 2) The student council president on the Mexico City campus stated: Studying at USIU-Mexico is like traveling around the globe without having to board a plane, ship, or train. You may not be in the same land as the Sahara Desert, riding a camel, but you meet people who use camels as major transportation systems and, through them, get a taste of their culture. In every class I have enrolled in, I have learned about at least one new culture that I did not know about before. It is not unusual to be in a class with eight students from eight different countries. Best of all are the cultural nights where students bring food, music, and sometimes movies from their country for all to partake in. The most recent events were the Italian Night, featuring different types of pastas and wine, and Indonesia Night, featuring delicious Indonesian-style food and dancing. (Hackenberg, 1995, p. 2) Yet another student from the San Diego campus, who spent an academic quarter on the Mexico City campus, stated:

243

I had the fortunate opportunity to experience a quarter at the Mexico City campus. IT ROCKED!! It was, perhaps, the best quarter of the four years Ive spent at this school. I highly recommend going to anyone who is open to new experiences and is looking for a good time. The moment my roommate and I arrived it felt like home. The staff [members] all go out of their way to make sure you are comfortable and can easily adjust to the new surroundings. Ill admit, it was a little intimidating going to live in a whole new country knowing only a smidgen of the language, but the outstanding staff members could make an Eskimo feel at home in the Sahara. They immediately took us to find an apartment just blocks away from the school and showed us all the nearby necessities like the grocery store, bank, and most importantly, the liquor store. Enrolling in classes was quick and painless due to the small campus size (around 200 students and class sizes range from three students to around ten or twelve). All the classes have a comfortably relaxed atmosphere and the students as well as the professors really know their stuff with many having in-depth knowledge of international relations, politics, and history. Be prepared for engaging in class participation (and discussions) as a joy rather than as a chore. The students at Mexico City are no different from students at the San Diego campus. They can party like rock-stars and do it on a regular basis. The school is located in a trendy area with tons of hip bars and clubs as well as beautiful museums and parks. Just a few blocks away is an area a little more fresa, as the locals like to say, which means the people there are a little more posh and wealthy. However, this area does have a plethora of out-of-thisworld clubs and discos. But be prepared to go all night. Dinner in Mexico usually starts around nine or ten p.m. Later, around one or two a.m., be ready to dance because the clubs are always hoppin. In a single club, you are sure to hear various sounds of electronic music, hip-hop, salsa, and maybe even some Cuban or other Southern American types of music. If youre lucky, you might end up at a taco stand around five in the morning trying to soak up some of that alcohol youve been so recklessly pouring into your body. Thats pretty much a typical night. Aside from the partying, there are tons of places nearby that are a mustsee, such as Puebla Cuernevaca, Xochimilco, a.k.a. the Mexican Venice, the Mayan pyramids and ruins at Chichen Itza, and the tropical beaches of Puerto Escondido. If youre interested in traveling when you get there, talk to the staff director on campus because she has the scoop on all the best deals on how you can be livin la vida loca!! (Haagenson, 2002, p. 2) Another student who transferred to the Mexico City campus from the San Diego campus said: Occasionally on Fridays we had barbeques on the roof where professors and students had a chance to interact outside of classroom. When celebrating the Universitys 30th anniversary, we saw and heard many guest speakers of various

244

cultural backgrounds. It was very interesting. For student orientation, we got to take the tour bus, walk through El Centro Historico and Zocalo, which is the center of Mexico City. We went out to bars, got to know everyone pretty well. With my art class we visited multiple museums and parks. The Spanish Department had many activities. One of my Spanish instructors, Hector, had movie nights at his house, where we got to practice speaking Spanish. Other evenings we discussed books. My favorite was going to listen to indigenous music in one of the city's oldest neighborhoods. Another instructor, Tito, took his students on field trips. They were some of the most memorable times for me! I became very close to the librarian, Angeles. In other words, going to Mexico City was like going home. You would see students in the classrooms, in the hallways, in the library, on the balconies, reading, writing, talking, laughing. The university staff made us, the students, the newcomers in Mexico, feel welcomed and enjoy our stay and experiences. I miss it a lot! (Alliant Online Survey, 2009) USIU-Africa campus in Nairobi, Kenya. A student who studied on both the San Diego and Africa campuses recalled her journey to the Africa campus: We start on our journey from downtown Nairobi in [which the route to the campus] is determined by the quality of the road. After fifteen minutes (provided there are no accidents on the way), we reach Safari Park Hotel, one of the best hotels in Kenya. We make a left turn following the directions of the arrows accompanied by a very small sign with the name and logo of USIU on it. Fifty feet later the moment we pass the entrance of the hotel, the joy of driving on the paved road comes to an end. The next half a mile of the road is more suited for tanks than passenger cars. If one is persistent enough to make it all the way, he reaches a very impressive entrance to USIU Africa. Security at the gate is tight. Each person entering by car is given a plastic square permit with a number on it. It should be kept throughout your stay on campus and surrendered on the way back. With the assigned number you enter a parking lot which can accommodate 40-50 cars. Straight across is the administration building which hosts the Presidents Office, Department of Admissions, Student Accounts, Student Advising, Information and Communications, and professors offices. Next is the beautiful three story library. There are no elevators or ramps for disabled persons, but all the students appear to be in perfect shape. Downstairs is the computer lab and across the way is the student center and cafeteria. The climate is very mellow in Kenya and one can always eat outside or in the student center. For lunch, the caterer delivers hot solid food which is not always great. But there are plenty of restaurants in Nairobi. The dorms are located in four-story buildings and each room can accommodate two people. The students overall have a tight bond even though it has more students than San

245

Diego and the student government advocates strongly on behalf of the student body. (Shiskin, 1994, p. 3) Another student from San Diego who spent time studying on the Kenya campus said: Eleven months in Nairobi, Kenya flew by faster than the blink of an eye. More than merely a tourist, it was my true home for the year of 1998. Spending only one short year on that amazing continent, I left with more than a million unforgettable memories, like climbing Mt. Kilimanjaros Uhuru Peak which was a very emotional experience. Besides climbing mountains, I also journeyed to other countries in Africa. I saw the worlds wonders in Egypt, treasured the wildlife in Tanzania, hiked the luscious green hills of Uganda, trekked through the jungle forests of Sudan, and met beautiful and generous people in Malawi. The places I saw, the people I met, and the opportunities I stumbled upon easily convinced me to extend my stay from a few months to a full academic year and Im so glad I did because each of these experiences has deeply impacted my life in a way I will never forget. USIU-Africa has a very beautiful campus and a larger number of undergraduate students. Most of the professors and students are Kenyan although many people are from every corner of Africa and various parts of the world. Adapting to the new school system was a little challenging at first since USIUAfricas system is somewhat of a British style, which is very different from the American university system. [But] this was all part of the learning process which forced me out of my comfort zone and thus helped me get more out of the experience. Africa is definitely not America, and vice versa. It would be unrealistic to go in with such expectations. But this is why I chose to study in another country. Getting the opportunity to experience another culture in another country completely foreign to me has allowed my world view to expand and reshape. Inside and outside the classroom I had the opportunity to interact with those from African countries near and far, as well as with people from other countries all over the world. I was able to experience and see with my own eyes diverse people and get to know them and their views, feelings, beliefs, thoughts, and cultures to which I was not familiar with. We helped each other understand the true meaning of multi-cultural and international awareness through our willingness to learn from each other. Believing stereotypes or having preconceived ideas about a country or people can highly limit ones ability to have a truly awakening and rewarding experience. I was able to adapt to Kenyan culture and enjoy its richness. The friendliness of the people helped me feel at home and overlook the dangers of a city nicknamed Nai-Robbery. I eventually grew accustomed to the pot holes in the roads and learned not to judge the cities by their undeveloped appearance or

246

compare them to how things are in the U.S. because it is not the U.S. Through my interactions and friendships with people, the other stuff did not seem to matter as much. I learned to accept things for the way they are and just enjoy my time there. It also made me appreciate how lucky I am to have been able to grow up in a country that is not stricken with widespread areas and villages that have poverty and disease (something which many of us take for granted), unlike many parts of Africa. Although most people there just accept life as it is since that is all they have ever known. [This experience] really opened my eyes to how much they need our help in terms of hunger, poverty, disease, and education. If one does not have to worry about such things, they have the opportunity to enjoy a fulfilling life- a life where they dont have to continuously fight to survive and make sure that their children survive. Seeing these things not only made me grateful for the comforts I have been afforded, but it made me want to join the effort to help this part of the world. In fact, I plan on applying to join the Peace Corps after I graduate. However, I still have a ways to go before I finish at USIU and I plan on studying at the USIUMexico City campus next year to see what that part of the world might open my eyes to. (Roest, 1999, p. 2) USIU athletics. Cal Western and later USIUs mascot was the Soaring Gulls. The Gull was likely chosen as the mascot when the University was located on the sea cliffs of Point Loma, home to many seagulls. Later, USIUs Scripps Ranch campus cafeteria lounge was named the Gulls Nest after the Gulls mascot. Gully, a caricature of the mascot, became a cartoon comic featured in the USIU student newspaper and campus television show produced by students. The Gulls had an NCAA Division I athletics program. University sports over the years included basketball, baseball, soccer, cross-country, tennis, track and field, volleyball, an unofficial diving team, and a winning mens ice hockey team, comprised of many Canadian all-star hockey players, some of whom went on to play in the NHL (Blumenstock, 1980). Because the University did not have its own ice rink, the hockey team played its games at the Mira Mesa Ice Complex.

247

USIU also had a Division II football team, nicknamed the Dirty Thirty, that played its games at San Diego Jack Murphy Stadium, now called Qualcom Stadium, where the San Diego Chargers play. In December 1978, USIU hired former Chargers coach, Sid Gillman, as the athletic director (Zimmerman, 1991). Four months later, he signed on to coach the Philadelphia Eagles. That year, the Eagles went to the Super Bowl. Three of the coaches Gillman hiredTom Walsh, John Fox, and Mike Solari also went on to coach in the NFL (Zimmerman, 1991). Two of the players he recruited, quarterback Robert Frank "The Goose" Gagliano and cornerback Vernon Dean, were drafted and became NFL starters. Gagliano has played for six teams, including the Kansas City Chiefs, the Detroit Lions, and the San Diego Chargers (Zimmerman, 1991). Former Cal Western-USIU football player Jim Anderson became the running back coach for the Cincinnati Bengals, Dante Scarnecchia became an assistant coach for the New England Patriots, the late Lew Erber helped coach the Oakland Raiders, and former Cal Western-USIU coach, Marv Braden, went on to a 24 year coaching career in the NFL including five years with the Chargers (Norcross, 2010). USIU also had a victorious basketball team, led by Coach Gary Zarecky, who had his team play a Run and Gun offensive style of basketball that allowed the team to score a high amount of points, while also giving up large total points, making games very exciting for fans. On January 5, 1991, basketball player Kevin Bradshaw made NCAA history when he scored 72 points in a 186-140 loss to Loyola Marymount University. The 186 points remains a Division I record for most points ever scored in a single game. Bradshaw broke Pete Maravich's NCAA record of 69 points for most points scored against a Division I opponent and ended his college career with 2,804 pointscurrently

248

number 15 on the all-time NCAA career scoring list. Bradshaw later became the assistant basketball coach at Point Loma Nazarene University. Other highlights in sports include those who went on to the NBA and MLB. In 1967, Al Razutis was drafted by the Houston Rockets, and, in 1984, Brett Crawford was drafted by the Chicago Bulls. In 1991, catcher Mike Murphy and pitcher Mike Whisonant were drafted. Another collegiate player, Morris Hatalsky, became a pro golfer. He was an All-American in 1972 and served as team captain. That same year, the track team took second place in the District Three meet of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), the nationwide athletic organization for small colleges (Stephens, 1972). In 1973, USIUs baseball team won the NAIA title. Its womens softball team was among the top 20 in Division I. In April 1985, the tennis team had a record of 32-6 and was ranked eighth in NCAA (Cooper, 1985, p. B2). The USIU-Europe (USIU-E) London campus also was a charter member of the American International Universities and Colleges Conference (A.I.U.C.C.). Although the London campus did not give athletic scholarships, it had competitive teams in basketball, soccer, volleyball, cricket, softball, field hockey, and table tennis. With its magnificent playing fields the London campus gained the reputation of being one of the top sporting institutions in South East England. Because of the campus pristine facilities, the World Football Leagues (WFL) England-based team, the London Monarchs, lived and trained on campus and students of the London campus got to attend all the games free of charge. The Monarchs shared the dorms and dining hall with students and often socialized at the local Red Lion pub. One student said that the players had stricter rules than students such as 11:00 curfews and bed checks in the dorms (London Campus, 1992).

249

USIU student life. In the early 1980s, USIU had a television station in San Diego, called KUSI-TV. Dr. David Feldman (1926-2009), Professor of Sociology and Communication and Founding Dean of the School of Business and Management from 1976 to 1984, played a role in getting the station on the air. In 1979, he created the Channel 10 USIU Weekly Poll and was the originator and host of a weekly half-hour program titled The Changing World of Business, which featured interviews with local business leaders (Gonzalez, 2009). USIUs other form of media communication was its campus publication, USIU News. It started out as a newsletter published by the Office of Student Affairs, and students, faculty, and staff were invited to contribute articles. The Office of Student Affairs then helped build the newsletter into a student-run newspaper during a time when open communication became paramount to the endeavors of the university. The Office of Student Affairs created a Student Publication Editorial Board (SPEB) composed of students and staff members and a student writer for the student government council. The function of the SPEC is to offer editorial consultation to the student editor of USIU News as it makes its transition from a university publication to an authentic student publication. SPEB will continually advocate for open communication (Kirkpatrick, 1990). The Assistant to the Dean of Student Affairs and Member of SPEB said: I hope that members of this community will feel both welcome and committed to expressing themselves on issues that are important to them and that both undergraduate and graduate students will take advantage of the opportunity to participate on the staff of a newspaper that is developing into a genuine student publication [which] is the direction that the SPEB believes is most healthy for this university. We recognize that it takes effort to adjust to changes in the climate. One of the changes will be this publication. We encourage you, as you make your adaptations, to be true to your sense of freedom of expression. It is important in this time of change to keep the communication flowing. (Kirkpatrick, 1990, p. 3)

250

In April 1991, USIUs student newspapers name changed to Envoy (later amended to The Envoy), after the name was suggested by the advisor and endorsed through a vote by students. The name Envoy, which refers to a diplomatic agent one rank below ambassador was chosen because it symbolized the international mission and originality of the University (Change is in the Air, 1991, p. 5). The Envoys slogan was: Delivering the message of universal understanding (Change is in the Air, 1991, p. 5). Through The Envoy, information could be disseminated to the university community, which became an important vehicle, especially during times of crisis, for students to voice their concerns and input. Those who felt the strongest about the rights of students to have freedom of the press were student staff members of The Envoy. USIU (later AIU) also had a television and media services department that managed a local channel called USIU-TV (later AIU-TV) for students who lived on campus. Students in the Campus Actors and Screenwriters for Television (CAST) created various programs that featured entertainment and university news and, at one point, featured several popular soap operas. One of the longstanding traditions at USIU was its annual International Friendship Festival (IFF), held on campus in the spring, which celebrated a different cultural theme every year based on a slogan and logo contest. Themes of the past were Join Hands With the World, Hands Across the Waters, A Day for Unity, USIUnity, and A Note-Worldly Celebration. The festival was open to the public and included cultural performances and music, international cuisine, a fashion show that featured students who

251

wore traditional costume and dress from other countries, and booths hosted by student clubs, organizations, and teams. Participating in student clubs and organizations was a large part of campus life at USIU, in which there was a club for nearly every type of nationality, ethnicity, identity, and interest. If a club that a student would have wanted to join did not exist, a student could easily form one through the Inter-Club Council (ICC). Many clubs and organizations were created with an international and global emphasis, such as the International Society of Poets, Wild Dreamers of the World club for student artists, International Finance and Investing Club sponsored by Morgan Stanley, The International Entrepreneurs Club, Global Eco-Defense Club, World Travelers Club, International Organizational Studies Association (IOSA), International Ballroom Dance Student Association (IBDSA), Toastmasters International Club, Model United Nations (MUN), Amnesty International Club, Rotary International Club, UNICEF Club, and the Center for International Studies (CIS) think tank for students interested in world affairs and issues, which published a scholarly journal called The Journal of International Studies. Participating in the university community also led many students to become active in student government/council, where council members could meet frequently with the university president and administrators. One former student government chairperson noted: Working in Student Government has given me the opportunity to work with a group of like-minded students who so strongly desire to make a difference for the better at USIU that they volunteer their time to the student body interests represented in the University community. I have had much pleasure in being a part of the developments. Its quite satisfying to know youre making a

252

difference. There is always so much more to do, but if you set reasonable goals, with motivated students and never diverge from the true cause, the comprehensive well-being of the USIU student, you can accomplish a great deal. (Needham, 1993, p. 2) Other former Student Government Representatives said: Being a member of the Student Body Government is the best way to get to know your university, your classmates, the professors, and take an active part in our Universitys governance. It is a most rewarding experience. Being able to actually have a voice and an impact on the campus life and to help enhance the university is great. If you want to have an input, this is your chance to do something to shape a better future. (Needham, 1993, p. 2). USIU student culture. There were endless opportunities for students to socialize, gather, get involved, and participate in extra- or co-curricular activities, which were encouraged and supported by the Office of Student Affairs, the Integrated Student Assistance Center (ISAC), faculty, administration, and staff, many of whom also were involved in these various aspects of student extra-curricular life on campus as club advisors and mentors. USIU was a very student-oriented/student-focused institution, not only in terms of trying to provide the best possible service, education, and experience for its students, but also by helping them develop into community-minded citizens and leaders. This was done by the university by offering various opportunities for involvement to help students, both undergraduate and graduate, develop their skills and potential as leaders. This was done mainly internally, using the university itself as a model of a world community to utilize the international atmosphere and diversity of its people and give them more opportunities to interact, work, learn, and have fun together. A USIU-Cal Western faculty member/administrator stated: College is a way of living. It is a life in process, the now of living, with a vision for the future. The priorities are clear. The focus is on the life of the mind, personal growth, and responsible citizenship. Each person who is both a

253

successful student and a constructive citizen is awarded continued membership in the community with all its privileges. College is a community of people who care. Individuals count. Mutual respect is basic. Special talents, professional competence, degrees of capability, and varied levels of maturity are recognized and respected. In terms of primary roles, faculty are lead learners, students are junior partners in learning, administrators are educational leaders and managers of personnel and resources. The dynamics of college life center around the interaction of young and older adults who are concerned with human development, the exploration of the unknown, the pursuit of knowledge, the gaining of wisdom, the solving of problems, the discovery of meaning, the development of competencies, and the experience of enjoyment in living. The process goes on daily both in and out of structured groups. The rewards of the adventure can be a more human person, a college degree, personal maturity, skills, vocational and service opportunities, life-long friends, and joyful memories without serious regrets. (Cannon, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 66) The university preferred that its faculty and students participate in universityshared governance and decision making by contributing to and sharing their thoughts and ideas on how to make the university the best it could be, and ultimately becoming engaged citizens in the university, as opposed to students having a consumer or bottom of the totem pole perception of their role and value as students of USIU. Administrators at USIU believed that students, in fact, resent being treated as kids and only as customers, rather than as responsible human beings. They desire to be legitimate participants. [USIU therefore] encouraged responsible and vital participation in improving both the academic programs and campus climate (Cannon, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 65). As one student stated, USIU treats you like a person rather than just a number (Famous Last Words, 1991, p. 4). A former administrator noted, In all areas of the University we strive to make students the number one priority (Schaedler, as cited in What Important Qualities, 1992, p. 3). Another faculty member/administrator said USIU worked:

254

seriously to maintain integrity, fairness, and respect with the students in all aspects of campus life. [This was done by] recognizing and encouraging a sense of self-worth by providing a real opportunity for students to participate as junior partners in the serious undertakings of the institution, i.e., student life and the evaluation of the universitys performance in both its programs and management. [We] welcome them as junior partners on the university team. (Cannon, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 67) The value that USIU placed on their students is unique, as many colleges and universities treat their students somewhere between customers who take their business elsewhere if their expectations are not met and children who do not know what is best for them in terms of their education. USIUs philosophy and vision was a world university or a model similar to that of the United Nations (UN), where people (e.g., students, faculty, staff) from diverse backgrounds, origins, nationalities, ethnicities, and cultures have something valuable to contribute and are able to play their part in contributing to the overall work, operation, governance, and betterment of the institution. Although each person was valued in his or her own right from the time they entered, USIU made a concerted effort to develop students leadership potential outside of the classroom by having their students get involved in various activities and organizations within the university, such as clubs, student government, and athletics. Students involvement with academic and extracurricular activities is key to [their] development and to the Universitys community (Wilson, 1995, p. 1). The purpose of university involvement was to enable students to gain experience working with diverse people in various settings, in addition to class, which creates even more valuable learning opportunities, as students would learn to work together with people from all over the world in various roles, settings, and capacities. For example, when a student played sports, he or she learned the value of teamwork while playing on a

255

team with students from several different counties. The development of student leaders, therefore, was believed to be an important cornerstone of achievement, not only for the students personally and professionally, but also for the university. Encouraging and supporting students to get involved in the university allowed students to develop themselves as leaders so that they would be able to contribute an improved version of themselves toward making the university better, both during their time as students and afterward as alumni. A student leader, now alumnus, said: The duty of participation for the conscientious student is an incorporated medium by which USIU prospers. We, as students, must realize our potential influence as individuals. This awareness entails the responsibility of participation. This participation can include writing the President, meeting with a dean, meeting with Student Council representatives, talking to fellow students, or even speaking up in class. Involvement is what counts. The ultimate goal of USIU is to become a university with a global impact. Certainly, this cannot be achieved by a passive student body. By accepting the integral challenge of participating as a student in the USIU system, it is important to acknowledge this unparalleled opportunity to make a difference. (Howey, 1992, p. 3) Another former USIU student, now alumnus, said: The student body is the most powerful and influential group in this university. Without the student body, there is nothing (Needham, 1991, p. 2). Students, therefore, who worked to develop themselves as leaders within the university by becoming active members in the university community, not only gained leadership experience by serving their university in various functions, roles, settings, and capacities (i.e., service leadership), but also led them to become more committed to and passionate about the university they were serving. USIU made it a priority to acknowledge and recognize student leadership; and students who were active leaders on campus often received Leadership Recognition Awards for fulfilling the criteria of:

256

upholding the mission of USIU; being a positive influence and role model for students; and having a GPA of at least 3.0 for undergraduates and 3.5 for graduate students. An International Leader Award was presented to a student leader who exhibited strong and outstanding understanding of nations and cultures. Other leadership awards presented to students included awards to student body government leaders, student employee leaders, sports leaders, community service leaders, multicultural leaders, and academic leaders (McCann, 1993a, pp. 1, 13). A USIU Student Ambassador program was launched in 1994 to help the university in its public relations and recruiting efforts. The USIU president spoke of the program: A program such as this provides students with the opportunity to develop leadership, communication and public relations skills, and to get more involved with the University generally. [S]tudents can be some of our best resources in promoting the University and indeed are the best salespeople a university can have. The concept of Ambassador fits USIUs international character. (New Student Ambassador Program, 1994, p. 3). Students in the ambassador program are hosts to visitors, leaders in orientation and other activities, liaisons to university constituents, advisors to administrators, faces and representatives of the University both in and outside the institution, and role models in the community. Being involved beyond the classroom caused many students to feel as though they had a real investment and voice in the institution (i.e., institutional stakeholders), which would encourage them to become more passionate and involved, inspiring them to try even harder to create a better institution by offering up their services, skills, ideas, input, and, most of all, pride in their university.

257

Many students used courses and class projects as opportunities to come up with ideas and input to help the university become better, which was encouraged and supported by faculty. These faculty would assign students projects that could ultimately help benefit the university; these included arranging for their students to conduct surveys or focus groups to help provide market research information to university administrators on the universitys various student populations, or having students do marketing plans and proposals to help the university increase its enrollment based on the theories and concepts taught in a course. Several students even used USIU as the subject of their doctoral dissertations to provide research to help the university in some way. The fact that students were viewed as junior partners when conducting the business of the university, as opposed to customers or children, resulted in many students participating in university affairs and sharing their ideas; it also instilled in them a passion for working for the university in helping it achieve its goals. In turn, many students and alumni later worked at USIU, and many were hired as a result of this passion and dedication to making the university the best it could be. A former USIU-Cal Western faculty member and administrator stated, Always remember that a successful, pleased, and grateful graduate of the institution is a great recruiter. Employ them for recruiting purposes (Cannon, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 67). USIU faculty culture. USIU lived in the convictions and actions of its faculty (Thorp, 2004, p. 26). The USIU faculty were the personification of USIUs mission and values, many of whom came from countries, backgrounds, and cultures as diverse as the students they taught; therefore, their understanding of and sensitivity to different cultures

258

and people allowed them to develop close relationships and rapport with students. A faculty member from Bangladesh reported: From the very first, I knew that I was an integral part of the University. In fact, I felt that my presence made the name United States International University true. This was also true of my students who came from all over the world. (Dil, 2004c, p. 329) An alumnus spoke of the faculty: Having professors from other countries was an added plus to the learning experience. They helped complete the circle of learning about the global community and its cultural realities. They have inspired, helped, and challenged us to go beyond what we thought we could achieve. They have challenged us to reach deeper and stretch further. Most importantly they have taught us invaluable principles to take with us in life: respect for all nations of the world; consideration for the diversity of human perspectives; taking the tools we have learned and applying them in the real world to make positive change; the ability and importance of working cooperatively in a team; and most importantly, taking the time to enjoy a fulfilling life by continuing to challenge our minds and enrich our souls. (Dawson, 2003, p. 1) For most of the faculty at USIU, it was the mission and vision of USIU that drew them to the university and compelled them to teach at and be a part of an institution that embraces diversity and humanism. Internationally renowned scholar/thinker and Visiting Professor Victor Frankl spoke of USIU: I have found more hope in Higher Education at USIU than anywhere else I know (as cited in Dil, 2004c, p. 354). A former professor, dean, and provost said that he was attracted to the University: more by its vision and location than by what it was. Its expressed global perspective without prejudice and its serious commitment to achieving academic excellence were challenging. I was a pioneer in search of frontier challenges. To me, security and well-being on planet Earth depended primarily on cooperation of peoples and nations for the common good, and I had come to view the United Nations system as the prime vehicle for global cooperative action. I was in search of a university in tune with the UN Charter, committed to preparing people who could lead in actualizing the United Nations dream. I thought, possibly [USIUCal Western] could grow to play an important role in the fulfillment of that global dream. As I became acquainted with the faculty I was impressed with their

259

quality, commitment, and professional attitude. Some good recruiting had been pursued. (Cannon, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 63) Distinguished Professor Herbert Bulmer said of USIUs faculty (and overall) culture: Here at USIU the individual efforts to do superior work come not so much from administrative instigation and promotion, but come from personal decisions and sense of responsibility. The individual efforts here at USIU are not products of an organized university plan; they occur apart from administrative programs, and frequently in indifference to them. Further, the individual efforts at superior achievement are carried out here at USIU without fanfare; they are usually done quietly and largely without notice. And, above all, these individual strivings here at USIU are different in that they have had to be carried on sometimes in the face of unpropitious and adverse circumstances. It is the persistence and triumph of these individual strivings that impresses me so strongly. They constitute what I have referred to as an unobtrusive quest for excellence, which constitutes the backbone of USIU. It is this unorganized, unpretentious quest for excellence by scattered individuals among students, faculty, administrators, and office workers that I have come to identify increasingly as the real spirit of USIU. To these unheralded and unsung shapers of United States International University, I give my salute. (Dil, 2004c, p. 377). The facultys dedication to uphold the mission, identity, and philosophy of USIU has been the driving force behind its success and survival. In the words of a former student: Such devotion by our faculty has been the strength of our University and an integral part of the experience at USIU (Frady, 1990, p. 6). Unlike at most universities, all USIU faculty members, rather than teaching assistants, taught classes. One former USIU professor/administrator said that faculty were the embodiments of USIU. Last to leave and earliest there, their teaching and writingindefatigable and uncompromisingwere the lodestone always available to reorient us any moment of uncertainty (Thorp, 2004, p. 26). In the words of the founding president: We are very proud of our outstanding faculty and the academic programs we have developed. Our professors are good scholars, some have been internationally recognized for their research and publications; but more importantly, they are

260

good, devoted teachers and work closely with the students. (Rust, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 57) Two former faculty members and deans who were husband and wife noted of the academic environment and collegiality at USIU: [W]e had the adventure of stimulating work with colleagues. [W]e had the adventure of exploring new fields of inquiry and discovering the exhilaration of interdisciplinary scholarship. At our previous schools, we were isolated in departments filled with others of our own academic discipline. At USIU, we were thrust into academic units with colleagues from varied disciplines and varied academic and cultural backgrounds [but] we were able to relate as friends. [T]hough we came from very different backgrounds, our friendship is a demonstration of the possibility of unity and respect that can break through cultural barriers. [One professor] showed us new avenues of enjoyment in the world of poetry. The psychologists deepened our understanding of the common struggles of humankind. And we delighted in the bonds of friendship and mutual respect that existed in the faculty. We both came from universities where faculties were divided and often engaged in rancorous conflict. At USIU, the faculty was like a family. We worked together, learned from each other, and shared our fortunes and misfortunes. And we ignored disciplinary lines as we did things. Unlike other universities where we worked, our socializing was blind to the boundaries of academic disciplines. The entire faculty of the university functioned as one [and] we cherish what we have learned about the human enterprise from them. In a real sense, we became both professors and students. We taught, but we also learned. Our horizons expanded. Our perspectives grew. We were immersed in an environment that intensified our personal and professional growth. [W]e gained new knowledge and insights from other disciplines. [W]e had stimulating conversations with students from diverse intellectual and cultural backgrounds. USIU students played a major role in our adventures of the mind. [W]e [also] had the adventure of meeting, listening to, and conversing with noted thinkers. These noted thinkers not only inspired us with the sharpness of their minds, but also challenged us to make intellectual pursuits a lifelong adventure. [W]e also wanted to stay intellectually active and growing as long as we lived. We found the vision that Dr. Rust had for the students being fulfilled in our own lives. (Lauer & Lauer, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 84) USIU alumni culture. Generally, many students who graduated from USIU have remained close friends, associates, colleagues, business partners, and even lifelong

261

partners in marriage, relationships, and friendships since they graduated from USIU. In addition, many started businesses or went into business together as professional colleagues and partners. Because alumni shared such a unique educational experience during their time as students at USIU, many are remarkably willing to help each other after they graduate. In other words, there is a cooperative spirit among many alumni to support one another in their personal and professional endeavors. There is an underlying sense of hospitality and generosity in which many fellow alumni can count on one another for help when needed as opposed to a having a sense of rivalry and competing against each other, found at some other colleges and universities. This supportive culture and climate seems to be something that is instilled in many students during their time at USIU, which they exhibit after they graduate, even if they did not know each other personally during their time at the university. For example, one student was awarded a prestigious internship at one of the top movie studios in Hollywood after she was put in touch with an alumnus who was a top executive at the studio company by the dean of USIUs College of Business. Another alumnus spoke of the benefits of having global connections around the world: This is great for when Im traveling abroad. When I am in the home country of one of my fellow alumni or former classmates, I know I can stay with them during my visit and they are more than willing to have me. (Alliant Online Survey, 2009) International education: The vision of USIU. The essence that: profoundly distinguishes USIU from other internationally-oriented institutions is that its very raison de etre is founded on the premise of providing a physical territory where people from around the world knowingly join together to spend a few years of their lives to grow with each other as human beings, independently of where they came from. USIU delivers on its promise of multicultural/

262

international education by being a common meeting ground where men and women from East, West, North, and South can join together and create something unique that none of them would have been able to create by themselves. (Caroppo, 2004, p. 164) One student called it the melting pot of universal learning (as cited in Ristine, 1992, B1). The vision behind the formulation of USIU comprised an international education based not only in the United States, but also abroad. After USIU opened its campus in Scripps Ranch, President Rust opened several other campuses, both in the U.S. and overseas in such locations as Colorado, Hawaii, England, Japan, Mexico City, and Kenya. To him, the idea of being truly international required having international campuses where USIU could have more than an international program; it could have international real estate. This took USIU beyond what most universities sought to do in international education. It did not merely send students abroad for short periods to absorb foreign cultures; it had resident students at all campuses from [both foreign] and local or indigenous populations. More than an innovative program, USIU was a new international invention. (Rucker, 2004, p. 80) In addition, a former senior vice-president for USIU remarked, It has been the most inspiring experience of my life to have been given the opportunity to be a member of the team that pursued the vision of an international university with campuses strategically located on all continents. [A]s I look back, my time at USIU has given me the rare opportunity to work across international borders to bring people together (Phillips, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 88). President Rusts determination to launch such campuses as quickly as possible, however, led him to pursue rather unconventional, and even unethical, methods for this undertaking, including failing to disclose the opening of new campuses to WASC, the accrediting body. President Rusts efforts to launch this new university in various

263

countries and locations without the time, planning, authorization, and consultation needed to do so ultimately resulted in the universitys collapse, as it did not have the resources to properly execute such a widespread expansion all at once. Dr. Rust was opening up campuses around the world and running a debt of $26.5 million. Dr. Rust ignored repeated warnings from WASC in the 1980s that the universitys spendthrift habits had to stop (Dibsie, 1993, B1). Lauer and Lauer (2004) reported: In other cases, money was invested in ventures that never came to fruition. A great deal of money was lost in such things as new campuses that turned out to be unprofitable, wrongful termination suits (people were hired and fired at the caprice of Dr. Rust) that were costly to settle, and programs were initiated that were without adequate resources and then terminated when it became clear that they were draining the university of scarce funds. (p. 87) One faculty member recalls faculty and staffs having to beg the president for their paychecks, which often were short. You havent lived until youre trying to pay your bills and your paycheck bounces, said a USIU senior faculty member in a 2009 interview. Some faculty were forced to take additional jobs to make ends meet. The university was placed under Show Cause by WASC from 1973 to 1977. Without accreditation, the university would be ineligible for state and federal financial aid, which meant that students could lose their financial aid and may not be able to transfer their credits to another institution. In 1977, rumors began to spread about USIUs having difficulties. By 1978, When it was confirmed that the University was overextended, open conversations spread among students about occasional missed paydays, mounting debts, lost accreditation, and the transfer of funds between the foreign campuses to meet the schools daily expenses. Some students immediately transferred to other institutions, but students who saw themselves as invested in USIU remained enrolled. A significant number of students were loyal to the concept of cross-

264

cultural and international education, and gambled on Dr. Rust to negotiate with creditors to save the school from default. (Pugh, 2004, p. 193) One student who attended USIU during its time of severe difficulty reported: I was upset about the financial trouble, I was worried. I considered transferring, but I ended up staying and I dont regret it. I really liked the school since I was able to meet all those people from around the world. (Zakrewski, 1991, p. 1) In addition, Pugh (2004) stated, The university continued under a dark cloud for more than a decade, becoming more obscure as it teetered on the edge of bankruptcy (p. 193). Although there was uncertainty over whether the university would be able to survive, there also was a spirit of hope and trust that the school would recover. This was done through peoples belief, sacrifice, dedication, and loyalty to remain committed to the universitys mission and vision. It was through this unwavering faith that USIU was, in fact, able to survive because a majority of the faculty, students, administration, and staff chose to remain and see a new era dawn on this great institution (Grey, 1992, p. 2). The spirit with which the large majority of faculty and staff have faced the needs of this time has been a major basis for the Universitys making it through this difficult period. The morale and achievements of our students during this time have been an unusually strong factor in seeing it through. It has been a time that called for a fiber of belief and courage, and strangely enough, it has evoked unusual achievements during the same time. Perhaps these two go together. It is my hope that the special commitment shown by so many will carry over into even more times that lie ahead. (Rust, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 58) The reality of visionary founders. USIU Founding President William Rust was an entrepreneurial visionary of higher education, articulating an institution with a distinct purpose and mission. However, Rust lacked the management and execution skills required for building such an institution, delivering on that promise, and turning that dream into a reality. One student said that the visionary did not walk the talk or practice what he preached in terms of exhibiting openness to all people and their different

265

ideas in moving the university forward. Additionally, the institution, in meeting its objectives and implementing its vision, did not have clearly articulated goals tied to action plans and timeframes or deadlines to accomplish those goals. This is Project Management 101 (Weissenbecker, 1994, p. 4). Some faculty spoke of Rust: In large part, we believe, the man whose dream set the course upon which the university would travel was also the man responsible for the dreams death. Unfortunately, in pursuing his dream, he would brook no opposition to his decisions, nor would he attend to any cautions or opposing perspectives from his administrators and faculty. (Lauer & Lauer, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 87) Another USIU senior faculty member described Rust as having: an overpowering self-centered selflessness. [He] had the extraordinary persuasive power to inspire a number of supporters in the early stages and to attract some outstanding teachers and scholars to [the] institution, but [didnt have] the ability to sustain that support, [and] continually moved on to new ventures before consolidating the project at hand. [He] believed that [he was] a sufficiently powerful one-person team, retaining all authority for decision-making unto [himself]. If only he had not seen it as his dream, but as our dreamincluding the faculty, staff, students, and the communityit would have had a good chance of becoming a reality! (Dil, 2004c, p. 417) One former USIU Professor remarked: As one who has been among the first group to seriously contemplate, research, and write about the role of technology as a transformative force in the redefinition of teaching and learning, I have experienced firsthand both the joys and frustrations of being an agent of change. Cultures cement their dreams in their institutions. Once a dream is embedded in an institution, the institutions existence depends upon the preservation of the dream. As Stanford Universitys Larry Cuban so often admonishes, Institutions, especially educational institutions, are persistent by design, and their persistence protects society from fads and erratic swings in practice. An educational innovation like USIU challenged (traditional) educational institutions imposing standards and regulations that threaten alternatives. That is the nature of education: it changes, it informs, it creates dreamers. It does not hold its members close in self-preservation; it sends them off to new ventures. Yet even though the USIU dream has no geographical home, it lives in the hearts

266

of those who shared the dream. The dream did not die with the institution, but it is not repeated verbatim either. Instead it is reconstituted and continually dreamed anew in the hearts and the work of those of us who shared it. (Norton, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 203) In turn, Vision can remain distant unless transformed into reality through design and implementation (Dil, 2004a, p. 258). Although the seeds of the USIU vision of value-based education were planted around the world, that tree of vision, cultivated by Dr. Rust, never fully took root (Phillips, as cited in Dil, 2004b, p. 88). Visionary institutions like United States International University, dedicated to excellence in teaching and research, may have ceased to exist in their original form, but not in terms of their essential purpose. Over three decades, thousands of students have graduated from USIU and carried seeds of intercultural learning and scholarship to different parts of the United States and other continents. Many of these seeds will blossom into new institutions of research and education to carry forward the noble message of USIU. (Norton, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 203) Rust was removed from the presidency in 1990, at which time he was given the honorary title of Chancellor Emeritus. Although Rust was held ultimately accountable and was responsible for USIUs collapse, he was nevertheless recognized as a visionary and founder of a great institution. One former USIU student said: Dr. William C. Rust made United States International University for the world to build world leaders. From just a mere vision, he made USIU what it became thereafter. A lot of people dont respect that and I think they should. We should realize that he is a very interesting person. We should give him the proper respect he deserves. He is not someone who quits, or gives up. He is definitely a leader. Some may feel that he oppressed his colleagues, as president, but his determination was in the universitys interest. Let us not forget who is responsible for the Universitys creation. He has brought the University a long way in education through his leadership. We should encourage each other rather than discourage each other. We all have the same feelings. We all want the University to be number one. (Alliant Online Survey, 2009) Another former student, now alumnus, said: I have faith that the vision of USIU will survive and eventually prosper. The idea of USIU, its international focus, its ability to attract students from all over the

267

world who, despite difficulties, stay with the University, is testimony to its promise. What we must do is continue that focus. We must also maintain the international flavor of the University. With our various campuses, we need to utilize the different environments to study our world; not only to promote our programs in international business, but also to study culture, psychology, sociology, education, and art. We need to set up residence programs of both short-term and long-term nature that will afford all USIU students the opportunity to study at every one of our campuses. Finally, we must keep innovating. We must not succumb to the temptation to be like everybody else. We need to continue our humanistic emphasis. As the great thinker Buckminster Fuller understood so well, we must begin to think in global terms in order to solve our problems as advance as human beings. (Hernandez, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 113). In terms of putting forth recommendations for USIU, another alumnus said: As a practicing clinical psychologist and professor and writer who received his doctorate years ago at USIU, I would like to see the University return to the unique, individual, and humanistic educational system (including modern humanistic psychology) that was so attractive and productive in the 1960s and 1970s. USIU once had unique programs, particularly at the graduate level, that were not available at other institutions in terms of orientation, philosophy, and instructional methods. The USIU Chemical Dependence program, particularly the doctoral program, is an example. Clinical Psychology used to be such an example, but it is not now, in that the curriculum seems to have abandoned the unique humanistic/ existential emphasis we once had, and now appears to be quite standard, just like literally hundreds of others. Without unique degree programs, what reason do people have to attend USIU? It seems apparent that the niche for a school such as USIU is only in specialized degree programs, or degree programs with a special philosophy of approach. Our future isnt in being just a little private college that has a few good, but standard programs. Our future is in getting back to what we used to be in our heyday: a small, excellently staffed university which attracted students interested in unique programs which they could not get elsewhere, at least in the same form. No matter what the eventual degree each student pursues, a small, but significant core of interdisciplinary courses that have to do with universallyhuman issues should be required intended simply to allow a student to have the opportunity to become a better human being. Professional degree programs should include courses which are required for examinations and licensure in California and other states, but so-called approval by professional organizations should not be a priority when it compromises the Universitys vision and values to do what it does best: be unique. [The prospect then] lies in identifying unique 268

programs; in implementing such with an educational philosophy which champions, challenges, and seeks to release the unlimited potential of the student; in establishing an educational philosophy which aids the student in growing toward his/her goals, not one which prevents such through constructing arbitrary hurdles, barriers, and fear; and above all, in preserving and enhancing the sense of human dignity of all those involved in the process. (Maloney, as cited in Dil, 2004a, p. 104) Exit William Rust: Enter Kenneth McLennan. In 1989, USIU was placed under Show Cause by WASC and in 1990 had to declare Chapter 11 Bankruptcy (Jones, 1990a). During that time, Kenneth McLennan (1925-2005), a retired four-star general and former deputy commandant of the United States Marine Corps, as well as a Distinguished Executive-in-Residence at USIU, became acting president (Ristine, 1992a) and was referred to by many as The Last Hope of USIU (Dil, 2004c, p. 314). One of the first tasks McClennan did to dispel the mistrust on campus was to change the composition and character of the board of trustees to change the rubberstamp actions (and perception) of the previous board (Pugh, 2004, p. 193). He then sought out new board members who were independent thinkers as well as committed to the mission of an international and cross-cultural institution. When USIU filed for bankruptcy it reduced its faculty, cut salaries and suspended intercollegiate athletics. In the reorganization process, Gen. McLennan met weekly with faculty representatives to restore a communication network that had eroded under previous management. (Williams, 2005). According to a USIU board member/alumnae at the time, President McLennan did a magnificent job of orchestrating resources, coordinating community relations and public affairs, and directing board members attention to issues related to balancing the equilibrium of the school (Pugh, 2004, p. 194). McLennan created an environment of

269

shared governance and began an egalitarian process of operation, and involved the faculty, staff, and students as participants in developing solutions (Pugh, 2004, p. 193). Programs that were eliminated included the School of Visual and Performing Arts and intercollegiate athletics (Jones, 1990b). The action was the trustees first move toward economic reorganization of USIU, which [was] facing a $14 million debt in the United States and an additional $8.5 million deficit between its campuses in Mexico City, London and Nairobi (Haddad, 1990, p. A1). This decision was not supported by many at USIU. Athletic Director Al Palmiotto, a 21-year employee at USIU who held many academic high-ranking positions, said the loss of sports would have a crippling effect on morale and could hurt enrollment. Im not defending athletics, he said; Im defending the survival of the university. Undergraduates feel this is an essential part of a college experience, and it is. Youve got to be crazy to think that, especially in Southern California, a young student who comes to this place from all parts of the world doesnt think athletics is essential. When youve built a program from scratch, when youve designed it and chose all the participants, it hurts, Palmiotto said. It hurts when you start thinking of some of the kids who picked this particular university because it had everything they wanted. (Haddad, 1990, p. A1) Students, faculty, and staff in the SVPA also were upset by the decision to cut the SVPA programs. One student wrote a poem in the school newspaper titled An Artless Society is a Dead Society, conveying his disappointment: The rooms stand silent like a lifeless tomb. The signs of death are everywhere. Decaying bars and pianos are lying still where they once played. The Spirit of the past now haunts this place. In the mirror it looks for clues. Why did they go? Didnt they know? An artless society is a DEAD society! I try to calm its fear. We didnt do it by choice. The decision was made for us. They thought money was the key,

270

So useless were we. And with a stroke of a pen we were finished! (Scheve, 1994, p. 2). In addition, Granberry (1990) stated that, McLennan conceded that the schools financial problemsin particular, cuts in arts and sports programswill have a dampening effect on morale. He said the school maintain[ed] full academic scholarships for about 200 students in arts and sports. McLennan said that the school essentially ha[d] no endowment and no mechanism for soliciting alumni contributions. He said the university makes its money primarily through the $15,000 room-and-board fees that students pay each year. (p. A1). Fortunately, the value of USIUs assets outweighed the amount of its liabilities 5 to 1 (Johnson, 1989). In an effort to liquidate some of its assets, the university sold its KUSI-TV (Channel 51) television station to Texas businessman Mike McKinnon for $10 million, and it began as a commercial station in 1992. KUSI still exists as an independent station today (News Cable 9) under McKinnon Broadcasting Corporation (Dil, 2004a, p. 221; Granberry, 1990, A1). The decisions that were made by the USIU board and acting president had a severe impact on the university community. For instance, they laid off 55 of its 314 fulltime faculty members to avoid a deficit of $400,000 (Jones, 1990b). Yet, even in these troubling times, many people put their trust in President McLennan and were confident that he would do what was ultimately in the best interest of the institution. A doctoral student from Germany remembered a campus address in which McLennan announced a payless payday for faculty and staff. After an hour he came out with people applauding, the student said. McLennan, he declared, had been the key to keeping this place alive (as cited in Ristine, 1992a, B1). Kens approach was calm and reasoned. He exuded and inspired confidence in a low-key, soft-spoken manner. He had an

271

excellent analytical mind in dealing with problems (Williams, 2005, B1). Another student said: Under the heroic leadership of Acting President McLennan, USIU staved off financial ruin and began a vital program of University Renewal. There is now a new environment of openness and freedom of expression on campus. Let us all remember that only by facing our problems will they be solved; only through awareness and involvement can commitment be made and reasoned opinions voiced. (Forsyth, 1990, p. 3) McClennans tenure ended in 1992 with the arrival of the new president, Gary Hays, who asked McClennan to remain at the university as a special advisor. He subsequently became a member of the board of trustees. A student who was chairman of the student council and who spoke at his USIU graduation said: When I first came to USIU I did not know much about the university and its uniqueness and I have to admit that my goals were to get a degree and move on to other things. This attitude did not change until the university went through what I call the Perestroika of USIU by encouraging an open dialogue between all constituencies of the University including us students. USIU Perestroika has not only given me, but I am sure, many of us a new perspective on the university. I realized the potential of our fine institution and could no longer sit back and watch things happen. By taking an active part in the change, I found that I was far from the only person who felt this way. In fact, many of us students have been part of the change in one way or another and I think our Perestroika has actualized the universitys mission to promote Life, Truth, Ideals, Leadership, Growth and Service. USIU has long been in the vanguard of international education. Our mission is vindicated by the sweeping changes which are currently re-shaping our world. Through this I have learned that our world needs doers who are not afraid to face and overcome adversity, and I feel that USIU has prepared us to tackle the new challenge of a changing world. We can and should be ambassadors for USIU, because the most effective and only true measure of greatness for a university is its students. By keeping this in mind, all of us will be able to contribute in part to the future success of this fine institution. (Dank, 1990, p. 3) Exit Kenneth McLennan: Enter Gary Hays. The board began a presidential search process and after several months chose the next USIU president, Gary Hays

272

(Ristine, 1992b). Hays had been the Chancellor of the Minnesota State University System and had worked in the private sector in the student loan business. When he began his tenure as USIU president in 1992, he was given one year to restore the troubled institution. USIU had declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1990 and was given three years to reorganize itself. In addition, the University was $28 million in debt, and its public image had been scorned; many referred to the University as U.S.I.O.U. (Frank, 1980; Jones, 1980; Morgan, 1995b). Hays was confident that he could turn it around, and, in fact, he was successful in doing so: After several trips out here and talking with the Board I decided to do it. I accepted the position despite the fact that the institution was in desperate shape because I enjoyed the challenge of turning it around. But I also would not have assumed that responsibility if I didnt think that it was possible. The last thing I wanted to do was preside over an institutional funeral. This wasnt a careermotivated move for me. I was living comfortably enough to be able to give it a shot. So I assumed the role of Presidency in May of 1992. While debt was the major problem I faced, there were all sorts of other issues regarding the overall management of the university. I was told faculty morale was terrible at the time. (Hays interview, 2009) When USIU students, staff, and faculty were asked what qualities they felt that their new USIU President should possess, they said: Leadership skills and vision are necessary. I believe a strong leader should possess the qualities which enable him or her to delegate responsibility and authority to demand accountability. He or she should know that that the most important asset an organization has are its people. (What Important Qualities, 1992, p. 3) I think the new president should be someone we can trust. He should be able to think long-term. I think the only way to grow (economically) is to better the education offered at USIU. (What Important Qualities, 1992, p. 3 ) Empathy and direct communication with the student body are very important. I hope he/she has a strong business sense. (What Important Qualities, 1992, p. 3)

273

He/she must be aware of what is going on around him/her. He/she should be someone who meets the needs of students and faculty and everyone associated with USIU. He/she should be a good and fair person. (What Important Qualities, p. 3) He/she needs to have a shrewd understanding of business that is guided by an international influence. (What Important Qualities, p. 3) He or she should be hands on from the highest to lowest levels of the university. He or she must be interested in everything that goes on. (What Important Qualities, p. 3) He or she must have a full understanding of USIU. (What Important Qualities, 1992, p. 3) He or she must really care about the students. (What Important Qualities, 1992, p. 3) For the most part, Hays was able to live up to the expectations of the USIU community. One student said, The mark of a good leader is to stay in touch with followers and get to know them personally. This is the attitude exemplified by the new USIU President (McAtee, 1995, p. 1). To meet its obligations under the Bankruptcy Court Order, it was necessary for USIU to sell its San Diego campus. Hays contacted a former colleague, the chairman of a Kansas-based non-profit corporation, Higher Education and Recreational Services, Inc. (HRS). HRS purchased the campus, which allowed USIU to get out of bankruptcy, and leased the campus back to the University. HRS also became, in legal terms, the Member of the USIU Corporation (Schmidt, 1993). In 1993, the London campus, which had been underperforming, also was sold after a suit had been filed in British court to gain control of the campus from its local administrators. After the finances were under control, a number of other changes were made. Hays reorganized the administrative staff from nine vice-presidents and eight deans to one vice-president (a new VP of Finance and Administration/Planning) and two deans

274

(dean for the College of Business and dean for the College of Arts and Sciences), which cut about $1 million from the payroll budget (Schaedler, 1992). Academic programs also were assessed and reorganized; unsuccessful programs, such as engineering, were cut, and new faculty members were hired. Several improvements to the campus were made, such as the installation of a fiber optic IT system, new computer labs, and technology in the library, as well as renovations to the dormitories and deferred maintenance. Hays began to address the universitys image problem by going out into the business community, reviving the alumni association, and renovating the Admissions and Recruitment Office. Hays also addressed the issue of an international/ cross-cultural curriculum. He believed that being an international university was not just about geography and owning campuses overseas, but rather incorporating the principles of multicultural and multinational education into, as well as outside, the classroom. He worked together with the faculty to ensure that these fundamental components were included in every course and program (Swanson, 1993). In addition, Hays restored student and faculty morale by instilling a strong, tightknit campus community and culture. He regularly invited faculty and students to his home and was a strong advocate in university shared governance. Many at USIU referred to the atmosphere and close relationships as that of a family. Hays also worked to revive some of what had been lost or cut due to the bankruptcy and finances. In 1995, part of the arts aspect that had once been so popular in the SVPA was brought back with the creation of a theater troupe, called The International Repertory Theatre Troupe. The troupe was staffed with community actors of the Scripps Ranch

275

Theatre and USIU students to bring back some kind of performing arts entertainment by utilizing the legendary Legler Benbought Theatre that had been built for the SVPA (Hays interview, 2009). In 1998, USIU started publishing a literary art magazine called Moksha, which is a Hindu term meaning liberation (The Daily Moksha, 1998, p. 6). In the good old days USIU used to be one of the best schools in the country for Performing Arts, then after the program was cut (due to financial difficulties), it seemed as if part of the institution had died. However, [after these were brought back] the soul of the institution started to glow again. (The Arts are Coming Back, 1995, p. 2) Additionally, courses were created in Visual Arts and Music of the World, which featured class performances at the end of the academic term. Hays improved the undergraduate program by adding traditional aspects of student life, such as intercollegiate athletics under an NAIA small school conference of the Far West Independent Region with a new name, the Globerunners, which had been previously been eliminated during USIUs bankruptcy and reorganization. During that time, several students formed intramural sports teams in soccer, softball, basketball, tennis, as well as a flag football team called the Diplomats. Although these teams had some talented athletes, they were all recreational leagues. When the USIU board voted to approve funding for an intercollegiate athletics program in 1994, it was hoped that this program would build student life (and enrollment) while also giving USIU students something to be proud of and rally behind (McAtee, 1994, p. 1). This program did attract and recruit more undergraduate students, particularly international undergraduate students: We worked very hard to build the undergraduate enrollment because it was almost nonexistent at the time. We didnt want to have just a graduate institution. So we worked very hard to bring in undergraduate students, but that was very costly.

276

We put a lot of money into publications, recruiting, etc. so the undergraduate enrollment grew, but it was always a challenge to keep it growing and it was very expensive to do so. Our largest program had been Clinical Psychology, but later enrollment in it started to go down. (Hays interview, 2009) Many in the USIU community were grateful for what President Hays was able to do in the short time that he had been there. One student expressed her gratitude: Under the leadership of an astute man, USIU has managed to cure itself from a severe case of financial turmoil. Although the University has a long way to go before reaching full recovery, it has survived. Since May 26, 1992, the USIU President implemented reorganization plans, helped to maintain WASC accreditation, and worked through negotiations with potential buyers of USIUowned real estate in London and San Diego. USIU owes a great debt of thanks to Gary Hays. Not only has he been instrumental in helping save the University from financial ruin, he has taken a personal interest in the students, faculty, and staff. He takes what people have to say seriously; he listens and is open to new thoughts and ideas. (McCann, 1993b, p. 7) Although many improvements to the university were made, financing continued to be a challenge, even with HRSs subsidizing the university at the rate of approximately $1 million annually to balance the budget. In February 1999, the chairman of HRS informed the USIU board of trustees that HRS was at capacity and could no longer fund the university. Hays then began to look at options to help finance the institution. In a letter sent to the USIU community, Hays wrote: In reflecting on the distance we have come, on where we are, and what remains to be done, I came to believe that there was a choice to be made. We could be satisfied with small incremental steps or we could undertake a bold initiative in an effort to make another major leap forward, as we did during what I have called our era of renewal and revitalization. With many organizations, improvement and strength can sometimes result from partnerships, alliances, or other cooperative arrangements. This is increasingly true for smaller, private universities that can become stronger and more diverse through sharing of programs and resources rather than individually attempting to be all things to all people. I believe this is particularly true for USIU and it is an initiative which I have devoted considerable effort. I am convinced that a [partnership] is in the best interest of this University and will provide an opportunity to build on what we have done since 1992 in taking another major step forward. (Hays, as cited in Dil, 2004c, p. 320)

277

After reviewing several options, Hays decided to approach Alliant University, formerly California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP), with the hope of creating some kind of partnership. On February 24, 2000, Hays sent the Alliant/CSPP president an email, saying that he had heard a rumor that Alliant/CSPP was looking to expand its offerings beyond psychology and that there might be an opportunity for some kind of arrangement that could be beneficial to both institutions. The Alliant/CSPP president responded that same day, saying the rumor was true and that Alliant/CSPP was indeed looking for ways to diversify. Approximately one week later, Hays went to San Francisco to meet with the Alliant/CSPP President and her senior vice-president. Subsequently, USIUs and CSPPs VPs of finance put together a financial pro forma based on assumptions discussed to determine whether a merger would be feasible. At a July 12, 2000, board meeting, President Hays and the chairman informed the board that, of all the various options explored, an institutional combination with Alliant/CSPP provided the greatest possibility of moving forward. By October 11, a draft of the Definitive Agreement was presented to the USIU board. On October 30, the board reviewed the latest draft of the Definitive Agreement, and, on November 17, the Definitive Agreement was approved. (Hays interview, 2009). The Definitive Agreement. The Definitive Agreement to combine the two institutions was approved by the CSPP board of trustees on November 10, 2000, and, on November 17, by the USIU board of trustees. The agreement was legally structured as a purchase of assets that involved: (a) the Agreement for Transfer of Assets and Liabilities (by and between Alliant/CSPP and USIU); (b) the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement (between HRS Educational Services, Inc., and Alliant/CSPP); and (c) the

278

Lease Agreement (between HRS and Alliant/CSPP). The document (as submitted in the WASC Combination Proposal, November 2000), is summarized as follows: CSPP will acquire substantially all of the assets of USIU, but not the corporation itself. Those assets include the students, faculty, staff, equipment, books, management information systems, technology and the San Diego and Orange County locations of USIU. Ordinary operating liabilities of USIU also are assumed, although some liabilities are excluded in the agreement. The second part of the definitive agreement is the real estate purchase agreement. It is a contract between HRS and CSPP. CSPP will purchase approximately 56 acres of the current 160 acre parcel on which USIU is located. On those 56 acres are the core campus buildings. Excluded from the land purchase is the acreage containing the Alpha and Beta dormitory complexes, some of the southerly parking area, and the northern underdeveloped flood plain area. The agreed upon purchase price is $7,500,000, which HRS will finance, interest free, for five (5) years. Under the financing plan, CSPP will pay $500,000 at closing, and $250,000 a year for each of four years thereafter; with a balloon payment of $6,000,000 due on June 30, 2006. CSPP further agrees to lease the remaining 104 acres on which the campus currently operates for an annual payment of $120,000 through June 30, 2004, thus ensuring ongoing use of the Alpha and Beta dormitory complexes. The new name of the University and its board of trustees will be Alliant International University (AIU). The new President will be the CSPP/Alliant University President. The USIU President has indicated that he plans to retire at closing, although he has been invited to continue within the new institution. The different calendars, different tuition structures, different records systems, and other differences in the structure of the two institutions will be part of the transition work. We plan to complete the transition to Alliant International University in two years. (Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, containing the Definitive Agreement, November 2000) Before the combination could be implemented, it needed to be approved by the regional accrediting commission, WASC. The institutions submitted a proposal to combine the institutions to WASC on November 20, 2000, which was revised on November 30, 2000. The proposal explained that, when Hays and the Alliant/CSPP President met to discuss partnership possibilities, they noted that the similarities of

279

missions and values, the convergence of direction in the institutional plans, and the complement of programs with minimal overlap suggested consideration of a combination of the institutions (Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, November 2000). The transition to becoming a new university: AIU. The university, as indicated in the Combination Proposal, planned to have a two-year merger integration/ implementation transition period, during which there would essentially be no layoffs or major restructuring. This transition to becoming AIU involved much planning and work done at every level of the university, from reorganizing the administrative structure and physically combining the USIU and CSPP campuses in San Diego, to changing the curriculum and calendar for students. This was a widespread endeavor, involving everyone from the president and the presidents cabinet to faculty and staff and, in some cases, even students. Much of the academic and administrative transition planning in the first year of the combination involved activities such as converting USIUs quarter system into the semester system used by CSPP; consolidating academic and administrative systems; extending three-year rolling contracts at the new university to USIU faculty who had tenure, in place of CSPPs five-year rolling contracts; combining the information systems, library collections, databases, staff, services, and student records; combining and converting employee salary and benefits packages; creating new student and faculty policies and procedures, including student and faculty handbooks and governance; and creating new academic and administrative policies and procedures. Obtaining WASC approval. In compliance with regional accreditation standards, WASC sent a site visit team to the San Diego Scripps Ranch (USIU) campus

280

to review the Combination Proposal and meet with representatives of both universities, including trustees, senior administration, deans, program directors, faculty, students, and staff. After the site visit, the team sent its site visit report to the Substantive Change Review Committee, a subset of the WASC Commission, which makes the final recommendations, pending approval of the overall WASC Commission. In reviewing the submitted Combination Proposal, WASC confirmed that: Both institutions are tuition dependent, lack endowment reserves, and have experienced enrollment challenges that promote a common interest in a relationship designed to produce a single, more academically and economically diversified combined organization. The future of USIU without HRS assistance would have been particularly difficult. Both CSPP and USIU have planned extensively for the proposed combination of the two institutions. (WASC Substantive Change Review Committee Letter based on site visit team report for the proposal to combine USIU and CSPP, January, 2001) In addition, WASC pointed to the following issues regarding the institutional combination: 1. Reputation/Recognition Concerns: Faculty of both institutions are concerned with specific areas in which they fear they will lose name recognition or reputation. Unfortunately, for both institutions the difficulty is compounded by lingering doubts about the Alliant name. For USIU faculty, the concern is loss of local name recognition for particular programs such as education, and for recognition for students/alumni in locations, particularly internationally, where USIU is known. For CSPP faculty, the prospect of yet another name change is in itself distressing. The addition of International has little importance to them since it does not directly convey multicultural, and in CSPPs historically core programs, differences in philosophy, practice and licensure not outside the US limits its international appeal for CSPP. Each institutions faculty noted a prestige issue. For USIU faculty, one of the objections to the loss of tenure is the perception that institutions which grant tenure are viewed as more prestigious and those that use contracts are seen as having a more business or profit model. The team did, however, expect to find more concern about tenure than was actually expressed by USIU faculty in which they were aware of the fiscal fragility of their institution. For CSPP faculty, there is concern about consequences for its APA accreditation.

281

2. Faculty and Staff Concerns: Faculty at USIU express concern that USIU is the politically weaker part of the partnership, especially given the legal form of the transaction and are worried there will be a we bought you out attitude from CSPP. Faculty and staff from CSPP fear that they will be disadvantaged in moving onto peoples established turfs and territories, and will feel like visitors or interlopers on the USIU campus. USIU staff were concerned about losing their staff council as a major means for expressing their opinions in university shared governance. Some issues concerning redundancy and job loss have been discussed. The new institution must deal with saving money by reducing duplication, while making assurances about not losing any jobs. CSPP recently started implementing an organizational redesign in which several campus-based leadership positions were eliminated. In turn, many CSPP staff and faculty have been disgruntled by this process. In part due to this, but also the disruption of moving and a strong job market in the area, some supervisors are worried that good people will leave. Issues regarding facilities were expressed as a serious concern in terms of shortterm crowding and the lack of adequate space needed. CSPP staff were concerned that they will be moving into others space or turf and that working in cramped quarters will highlight duplication of positions, and thus create competition and rivalries among people trying to look good to keep their jobs. Current plans to facilitate the move of the CSPP-San Diego faculty to the Scripps Ranch campus involve the construction of a substantial new building. There is a definite need and reliance for the construction of a new building. 3. Program Issues and Concerns: Both institutions face declining demand and/or increased competition for the programs they offer. At times, members of each institution expressed a kind of wishful thinking that the other was bringing with it expanded enrollment. It will have to be stressed that it is the potential for expanded enrollment that is enhanced; great effort will be needed to realize that potential. While concerns were expressed that some programs might be forced to close or to change in conformity to others, many faculty members felt that there was room for both, and/or that changes and modifications would have taken place anyway. The quarter-vs-semester issue is substantial. Operating at San Diego with both schedules will be expensive and confusing, but changing one set of programs to the other model will be a massive and costly activity as well. Decision-making about whether, which and when must begin immediately. 4. Finances: With the recent retirement of the Chief Financial Officer at USIU, it is clear that CSPP has taken responsibility for assessing the fiscal implications of the combination. Indeed, the fact that the USIU president has also announced his retirement contingent upon the successful reorganization places USIU in a position of enhanced vulnerability if the combination is not consummated. Nonetheless, there is a comprehensive financial plan that has been developed,

282

predicated upon reasonable assumptions, that demonstrates that the combined institution will be stronger fiscally that either of the two institutions were individually. Enrollments are projected as remaining constant over the next several years, which, given CSPPs recent experience may be optimistic. Recommendations given by WASC. Planning/Governance: It is recommended that CSPP and USIU open communication to all constituencies involved in the combination process. Openness and clear communication is encouraged so that successful combination can be achieved. This process cannot be reversed, and attempts to halt or even slow it are likely to be counter-productive. Instead, the process must be directed by the institutions leaders. It is also essential that both institutions make extraordinary efforts to apprise key constituencies and facilitate receiving comments and suggestions from them. The transition process will require enormous attention, from the need to synchronize educational philosophies and broad policies to the innumerable details essential for implementation. This will affect all aspects of institutional life. The tasks at hand will likely be very time consuming if the transition is to be managed smoothly. Accordingly, it may be important to free up some faculty members time from routine responsibilities to enable them to devote sufficient attention to the details of implementation to ensure the smoothest transition. Extramural Support for Transition: One or more foundations could be approached to seek grants to support the transition process. Foundations might well find it attractive to facilitate the launching of a new institution that is intended to strengthen the effectiveness of two distinctive institutions of higher education. Timing of Implementation: There is much to be said for moving the implementation along as rapidly as possible so that uncertainties are resolved sooner rather than later. However, it is also clear that events can move too quickly such that the time needed to deal wisely with such complex issues as space utilization is sacrificed. Balancing the twin needs for swift action and more deliberate judgment will be a challenge. Miscellaneous Observation: The proposed name change appears to be nearly universally unpopular. Finances: On behalf of the USIU faculty, staff, and students there was an apparent enthusiasm and genuine appreciation for the potential of long-term financial stability. And as is common in mergers and acquisitions, this good will is an asset that should not be squandered. While there is a financial plan for the combination that appears to be reasonable, it is recommended that CSPP senior administration and board recognize that, like any other plan, there will be elements of the plan outside their control. The use of CSPP reserves to bridge

283

transitional difficulties in the combination would send a very different message than more aggressive reductions in staff. Early integrations of the faculties is a worthy goal. Environmental conditions that are conducive to good education should not be sacrificed and a sensitive appreciation of the space needs of all parties should be maintained. Concluding Remarks: If the model that has been developed is achieved, there is evidence that the two institutions, currently challenged by under-enrolled programs and fragile economies, will emerge stronger as a combined and more diverse organization. But models, even with the most informed assumptions, do not always produce the expected results. Failure of the model could have a significant impact, most particularly, on the delivery of programs to undergraduate students on the USIU campus in San Diego (WASC Substantive Change Review Committee Letter based on site visit team report for the proposal to combine USIU and CSPP, January, 2001). The Final Agreement. From the time after the Definitive Agreement was signed in November 2000 and the Combination Proposal was approved by WASC until the deal closed in July 2001, much was done in the way of due diligence; USIU was required to provide a substantial amount of information to CSPP/Alliant University regarding every available aspect of the institution. Prior to the closing, the City of San Diego was required to approve boundary changes to the campus; the Department of Education and the California Student Aid Commission were required to approve the new, combined university for federal and state financial assistance; and the California Commission for Teacher Credentialing was required to approve a transfer of credentialing authority from USIU to the new, combined university. Legal counsel was retained for these requirements. The Final Agreement was approved and effective as of July 1, 2001. In terms of acquiring the international campuses, CSPP had originally intended to retain the Kenya campus and had left that option open in the Definitive Agreement. However, the difficulties associated with managing an overseas campus of that size (more than 2,000 students, USIUs largest campus), coupled with the accreditation

284

regulations mandated by the Kenyan government, made retaining the campus an arduous challenge for the new administration; therefore, they decided to not acquire the USIUKenya campus. It was a mutual decision made by Alliant and USIU-Kenya, in which it was determined that merging with Alliant was not in the best interest of the campus, especially as USIU-Kenya was so highly regarded and reputable in that country. Further, it was believed that changing its name would have negative consequences. USIU-Kenya was able to retain the name USIU and continue its U.S. accreditation with WASC as well as its accreditation in Kenya by the Commission for Higher Education (CHE) and the Ministry of Education (USIU Kenya, 2009). The Mexico City campus, however, was retained under Alliant International University (AIU), as it was a much smaller campus and, therefore, deemed to be a much easier operation to administer. Alliant International University The final decision to change the name of the combined university to Alliant International University (AIU) was met with much resistance. Those from USIU who took pride in the USIU name and strongly identified with it did not agree with, and in some cases, felt slighted by, the decision to change it. Additionally, the name Alliant was not greeted with enthusiasm from either USIU or CSPP. Although CSPP had, in fact, changed its name to Alliant University, most were under the impression that this name would change after the acquisition: We hadnt even started printing business cards yet for the new name and the reason for that was because the merger opportunity then came along and we thought the name might change again anyway. (Former CSPP/AIU Senior VP)

285

CSPP was still CSPP and Alliant hadnt even been printed on university letterhead yet. It was more like CSPP was doing business as Alliant University. (CSPP Faculty Member and Former CSPP/AIU Board Member, 2009) In fact, the name change to Alliant University was pending approval from WASC before the merger opportunity was presented; the Institutions legal corporation was still in the name of CSPP (because CSPPs corporate structure made it very difficult to change its name) when the two institutions merged. Therefore, CSPP was doing business as Alliant University during the time of the combination (Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, November 2000; Board of Trustees Development Binder, 2007). During the negotiations with USIU, there was much discussion regarding the new name. Those from USIU wished to keep its name and its international recognition, and those from CSPP did not want the CSPP name to be lost or CSPP to lose its reputation and credibility. Many suggestions for names were made, such as California International University, but most of the names had already been taken, even though some of the universities tied to them never materialized. So the go-forward name remained Alliant while adding International to incorporate the USIU legacy. The name CSPP was kept as the name of its school within the university. Alliant International University, in its early years, was called by its acronym, AIU. Today, however, the university is referred to as Alliant rather than AIU in an effort to re-brand the university after it was placed on Show Cause status by WASC. In addition, AIU is the name of an online university, American Intercontinental University, known as AIU Online, and Alliant International University does not wish to be confused with this university. In this study, the name AIU is used when referring to the time period of 2001, when the university was created by the combination of USIU and

286

CSPP/Alliant University, to 2004, after the university was placed on Show Cause status by WASC and the AIU President stepped down as university president. Announcing the combination. After the deal became official, both USIU and CSPP/Alliant University needed to communicate the institutional merger to their students, faculty, staff, alumni, and the external community and make the information public. Letters and emails were sent to the internal university communities, and several press releases were circulated to the public (Van Der Werf, 2001). When informing the public about the merger/acquisition, both institutions referred to it as a combination of the two universities since, in legal terms, [it] is neither a merger nor an acquisition. Rather, it is structured as a purchase of assets of USIU by CSPP (Combination Proposal submitted to WASC, November 2000). The new mission and vision of AIU. The new vision, mission, and goals were formulated with the help of a system-wide strategic planning committee, consisting of administration and faculty representatives. This committee combined the missions/visions of the previous institutions to create a combined institutional mission/vision for a multicultural, global university, Alliant International University (AIU), which served to further extend the strategic plan that had been formulated and partially implemented by CSPP/Alliant University. The new mission was stated as follows: Mission Statement: Alliant International University educates citizens of the world, ensuring the acquisition of knowledge and competencies that are essential to live, lead, and solve problems in a global society. A vision statement was articulated as follows:

287

Vision Statement: Alliant International University will achieve international recognition and respect as a worldwide institution of higher education with a special focus on human relations, the applied behavioral, cognitive, and economic sciences, and the humanities. Objectives: Alliant International University, as a community of scholars and practitioners, engages students in a comprehensive, integrated, interdisciplinary, and cross-cultural approach to learning. Through their education at AIU, graduates will be empowered with the knowledge and skills necessary to: Develop innovative solutions for pressing human problems, Communicate effectively in diverse settings, Utilize technology for extended learning, Work successfully with others to achieve organizational and social goals, Provide leadership for the common good, Bridge international and cultural differences, and Contribute to their chosen fields.

Goals: To realize this vision, AIU will judiciously expand its programs, thereby offering students the knowledge and skills necessary to fill leadership roles in a dynamically changing world society. AIU will create a communications and technology infrastructure that supports and encourages a globally accessible network of scholars and learners. AIU will continue to diversify its revenue streams in order to create a healthy and sustainable university economy. AIU will expand alliances and partnerships with other higher education institutions and corporate not-for-profit agencies, thereby maximizing the reach of its programs. Aspirations for the combination. In an interview with the then-AIU president regarding the change, she explained: Our mission statement clearly states that we wish to educate citizens of the world. I want to make this a reality by building on the international focus of the University, which came from USIU, and the multicultural focus from CSPP. Personally, I would like to ensure that every student has at least one international experience, at least one chance to be immersed in another culture, through intercampus transfers and cross-cultural seminars. It is important that we have diverse, international communities on our campuses, and I will work to make this happen over the next three to five years. At the same time, we must maintain our position as the nations premier educator of clinical psychologists. 288

On the operational level, we have to make this marriage of two institutions work. Here we grapple with such basic problems as the transition from quarter to semester system and the need to improve services for all students. The strategic level [involves] mapping out our future as a university. This means promoting the extraordinary strengths of the university, such as its international perspective, and incorporating them in new programs and improvements to existing ones. We have launched a program called Building Excellence at AIU. Faculty, students, and staff will participate in committees and task forces to address strategic issues at both the strategic and operational levels. This will ensure that the whole AIU community takes part in the decision making and implementation. The committees will be responsible for planning new initiatives, including costs and time schedules. One task force, led by the Provost, is charged with reviewing all academic programs and recommending changes, including expansion of programs. Our long-range planning must address problems related to visas for international students (which has become a serious concern since the September 11 attacks). At the same time, we have to look at new ways to attract both international and US students, while maintaining the multicultural and international character of the University. The Student Services Department works to ensure that students here enjoy as rich an experience as possible. We are planning several projects to improve the quality of student life on campus, including another [improved] fitness center on campus and more student activity space. We are also reviewing bids from architectural firms for a new campus master plan. The master plan must be completed this summer, before we begin construction on our first new building, which will include classrooms and offices as well as a Center for Innovation in Behavioral Health. At the same time, as an institution of higher education we wish to focus on intellectual issues and the quality of the academic programs we offer. Our academic community strives continuously for academic preeminence, and the Building Excellence at AIU program will intensify that work. We are in transition, and we are steadily becoming a better universityone of which we shall be immensely proud. I would like everyone on this campus (San Diego Scripps Ranch) to know that I spend half my time in San Diego and am available for meetings to discuss issues and problems with anyone. I encourage students, faculty, and staff to share their views on issues about which they are concerned, and also to share their dreams for AIU. (Saran, 2002a, p. 7) While the transition was underway, many academic and administrative changes were made to form the new universitys operations. However, with the exception of combined administrations, board members, students, faculties, and staff; and missions/

289

visions, and programs and services, little change immediately occurred in terms of creating a new culture or identity for the new university. Not wanting to create major, disruptive change was a deliberate decision by senior top administration, whose goal was to implement incremental change, allowing a two-year transition/integration for the new university as an adjustment period for students, staff, and faculty (new and existing) who were coping with the change and as a means of transferring knowledge and on-the-job training from the previous institutions to the new, combined institution. The act of accomplishing minor rather than major change was exemplified by the creation the two-year transition plan, by which all jobs were to be saved (because, as the AIU president said at the time, Everyone is and will be a valuable, contributing member of the new institution); the organizational/administrative structure was broadened rather than streamlined; the acquisition was referred to as a combination, thereby implying a merging of equals; and the previous institutional cultural identities remained somewhat separate and intact over the course of the integration, which, some say, still continues to some extent. It has been indicated that the rationale for implementing slow, incremental change as opposed to fast, widespread change was done to preserve rather than dismantle both institutional cultures and identities. In turn, top administrations goal in this case was to facilitate a sense of continuation rather than disruption to life at both universities. Therefore, rather than allowing for sufficient lead time to strategically and effectively plan the transition/integration, which is generally the standard practice for most organizations that implement effective mergers and acquisitions, the new university, AIU, had to hit the ground running, as one interviewee put it, in which the

290

implementation as well as the existing operations would have to occur simultaneously. This was a catch-22 because neither institution could afford to wait and take the time to properly plan the integration due to financial constraints; however, allowing the dual structure of both universities proved to be too costly. Thus, the implementation was executed during the same time that business as usual was supposedly occurring, which, according to another interviewee, made it seem like we were running full speed ahead, but didnt know what direction we were going. Although this lack of effective integration planning led to many negative outcomes that could have been avoided or prevented if integration planning had taken place, this is not to say that no planning took place. Transition planning. Due diligence was performed from the time the Definitive Agreement was approved on November 17, 2000, until the transaction closed on July 1, 2001. Transition planning also had been done at the board and top administrative levels before the Definitive Agreement was approved to create the Two-Year Transition Plan/Combination Proposal submitted to WASC on November 20, 2000, which included financial projections and assumptions for combining the institutions. Additionally, other forms of planning, such as academic program and policy planning, human resource planning, facility and campus planning, had been done for the two-year transition plan, with the inclusion and leadership of faculty and staff who would be responsible for implementing those specific parts of the plan. Thus, the transition planning that took place was limited to undertaking the day-to-day operations of the university, comprised of faculty, administration, and staff, mostly on the local level of the

291

San Diego campus, where the physical merger took place, as opposed to a system-wide integration planning effort that involved all of the campuses. Implementation outcomes. After the implementation was underway, efforts were made to combine the institutional/organizational cultures of the previous CSPP/Alliant University and USIU. This was led, for the most part, by the new provost on the San Diego Scripps Ranch campus, using team-building exercises for faculty members. However, the results were not as successful as expected. The ineffective efforts to integrate the two institutions and various campus cultures resulted in further negative outcomes, with clashing cultures and identities among the faculty, staff, students, board of trustees, and administration, particularly with merging the two universities operations. The following section describes the implementation aftermath. CSPP versus USIU The identities and cultures of CSPP and USIU, as they were very diverse, clashed with each other. The different factors of the institutional cultures and identities include the following: School versus University Even though CSPP was in the process of reorganizing itself from a school to a university during the time of merger, it still was a single school that consisted of various programs of psychology, with clinical psychologys being the largest. In contrast, USIU was a university made up of schools and colleges of various programs and disciplines, some of which were subdivided into departments.

292

Previously Autonomous versus Independent, Separately Run Campuses As mentioned, CSPP was in the process of reorganizing itself from a loose affiliation of autonomously operated campuses with separate accreditations to a systemwide structure of schools, dispersed over the various campuses under one single accreditation. In contrast, even though USIU, like CSPP, had a U.S.-based board of trustees and all the campuses bore the same institutional name, each of the USIU campuses were independently operated and legally incorporated, consisting of their own local campus board of trustees (with representatives on the U.S.-based USIU board), faculty, administration and staff. Traditional versus Non-traditional Boards, Faculty, and Academic/Administrative Structures USIU was organized in a traditional university approach with regard to the basic board of trustees (with the exception of the inclusion of multi-campus representation, with HRS as the member), as well as its academic/administrative structure with regard to student-campus services and affairs staff; schools, colleges, and departments for various academic programs; and faculty tenure. CSPP, however, had a unique organizational structure, in which it included four students and four faculty members on the board of trustees as a condition of its incorporation as a professional school of psychology. CSPP began as independently run and separately accredited campuses, each with its own chancellor, dean, and provost who were responsible for the overall academic and administrative management and leadership of the campus. Program directors were in charge of academic programs (unlike USIU, which used the department chair model), and administrative staff members were in charge of various student-campus services. CSPP

293

faculty held contracts as opposed to tenure. CSPP changed its academic/administrative structure after its reorganization by eliminating the campus deans, chancellors, and provost, and replacing them with system-wide school-based deans, directors of campus and student services, and one provost, who was hired as the merger with USIU was being finalized. In other words, CSPP was in the process of changing from an autonomous, campus-based model to a multi-campus, system-wide-based model by creating a new, top-level academic and administrative organizational leadership/management structure with one president at the helm. USIU, by contrast, was similar to the former CSPP campus-based leadership/management model/structure and consisted of a president, board, faculty, administration, and staff, who led, managed, administered, and operated the USIU San Diego campus. Homogeneous Professional versus Heterogeneous Academic/Professional Cultures/Identities Because CSPP was comprised of practicing psychologists, CSPPs identity resided largely in the professional field of psychology, making it a relatively homogeneous culture. USIU, however, consisted of both scholars and practitioners of various fields, such as business, education, psychology, and liberal and international studies. Graduate versus Undergraduate Students CSPP has always been primarily a graduate/doctoral institution, focusing on and catering to graduate/doctoral students. USIU had both graduate and undergraduate students, with its graduate students outnumbering its undergraduate students.

294

Residential versus Commuter Campuses and Students USIUs San Diego (and Nairobi) campuses were residential campuses, with dormitories and various aspects of student-campus life, including NAIA Division Athletics. CSPPs campuses were non-residential, leased office buildings that provided facilities and services appropriate for graduate commuter students. Student-oriented versus Faculty-oriented USIU operated largely as a student-focused institution by providing services, facilities, programs, support, and opportunities for students (both graduate and undergraduate) to develop themselves as leaders by becoming involved in the university outside the classroom. Generally, students at USIU were put first when decisions were made. CSPP also served the needs of its students but tended to be highly influenced and controlled by facultys inclusion and input, at least on the campus and board level; and students, for the most part generally respected, adhered to, and shared the views, opinions, and perspective of faculty. American (Multicultural) versus Foreign (International) Despite the fact that both USIU and CSPP adhered to a multicultural/crosscultural focus, their worldviews were different. CSPPs identity resided in American cultures/identities, as this is the demographic that largely composed the CSPP population, while USIU embraced a global and multinational worldview, as people from all over the globe attended and taught school there. One faculty member from USIU declared that CSPP viewed diversity from an American lens rather than a global lens (Alliant online survey, 2009).

295

Understanding Differences versus Realizing Commonalities Although both institutions had diverse populations and embraced diversity as a value-enhancing mission and objective, CSPP focused on understanding various people, populations, communities, families, and cultures, particularly with regard to the underserved, underprivileged, and/or misled/misunderstood minorities, people of color, disabled persons, criminals, children, and the LGBT community. USIU also valued the understanding of different people, cultures, and nations, but more as a means to realizing underlying commonalities in the human family to see that people, despite differences, are in actuality all alike and, when brought together, can live and learn in harmony. Academic Program Review Shortly after the combination, AIU initiated a university-wide academic program review. A 26-member Academic Affairs Excellence Team (AAET) was established, with representation from faculty, students, and administrators, including representatives from the Faculty Senate. Thirty-eight programs/academic areas were reviewed by four AAET teams. Both the AAET and the deans recommended that certain programs with low enrollment and/or demand be reduced, eliminated, or combined. These decisions included closing one school (the School of Social and Policy Studies) and one department (Global Liberal Studies), and ending six graduate programs and six undergraduate majors, including Sociology, English, Political Science, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), Elementary Education, and Communications. Many students were upset by the decision to suddenly discontinue so many programs. One student, who wrote an article in the The Envoy student newspaper during this time, said that the:

296

cuts affected all areas of the University [and has] left many questions [about] the direction and vision of the school. It also led to many rumors being spread that [all] the undergraduate program[s] might be headed for the chopping block due to [increased and further] budget cuts. (Bliskell, 2003, p. 2) Implementation: The Aftermath After the Alliant International University (AIU) implementation was underway, there was much discussion regarding logistical aspects of the implementation, such as which institutions IT system should be used, who would report to whom, who was responsible for what, and where staff would be located: San Francisco or San Diego. San Francisco, inherited as the CSPP/Alliant University System Office, was where the president, CFO, and most of the presidents cabinet were located. The remainder of the staff, and those who came from USIU or CSPP-San Diego, were located on the San Diego Scripps Ranch (former USIU) campus. The president and some of her staff divided their time between the San Diego campus and the presidents System Office in San Francisco. As one interviewee stated, Having to operate with two main administrative offices is not impossible to do, but it is hard if you have no previous working relationship, communication, or ground rules as to how it is going to work, (former CSPP/AIU Senior VP interview, 2009). This geographic divide caused a rift in the overall university management, and organizational lines became blurred. The new AIU president was determined to avoid major layoffs. In turn, most of the staff and faculty remained employed at the new university, at least in the beginning. Parallel administrative systems ran for as long as 3 years in an effort not to lay off employees as a result of the acquisition (Rozhon, 2008, p. 111). Because most of the

297

USIU staff members were able to keep their positions, this created new layers of management that neither of the previous, small-scale institutions was familiar with. The organization chart grew, which created a great deal of administrative chaos and confusion. It created confusion because employees were unsure of their responsibilities or the responsibilities of those with whom they worked; and, since no formal implementation structures were in operation, employees were not sure how to manage the complexities (Rozhon, 2008, p. 111). According to a staff newsletter for the San Diego campus, an organization chart was in the process of being created for the new combined university as late as February 2002, about eight months after the transaction deal closed and seven months after the 2001-2002 academic year started, so staff [members would] know who is in charge of what (Reader, 2002, p. 7). The lack of integration of the institutions management information systems was likely the most detrimental barrier to an effective implementation. For instance, because both institutions used a database system called CARS (Centralized Accounts Receivable System) to track and manage university finances and information, it was believed that combining these two systems would be a simple process. However, USIU and CSPP/Alliant University had both used highly modified versions of CARS, which made combining the systems extremely difficult. The discussions regarding which institutions CARS system to use became so prolonged that the new university started to use both systems simultaneously, which made financial tracking, management, and budgeting an administrative nightmare. In addition, students, when registering for classes or paying tuition, would be asked whether they were USIU or CSPP. This lack of integrated information systems eventually led to a financial catastrophe.

298

A culture clash resulted between the two institutions administrative processes and personnel, particularly those in the areas of finance who had different ways of reporting financial information such as incurred costs and expenses. In some cases, information was not being reported, and each side later blamed the other for this lack of accountability. The finance department also experienced much turnover during the course of the combination. In fact, before the merger deal was finalized and after the financial projections were presented and the boards decided to move forward with the deal, USIUs CFO retired, and CSPP/Alliants CFO resigned. Consequently, during the merger, there was no CFO in place. The next CFO stayed only a short time, and the finance department experienced turnover in other positions, such as controller. This turnover led to even more gaps in information which, due to the incompatible systems, processes, and personnel, was not adequately tracked and reported, causing the university to lose track of their expenditures. The Collapse of AIU Because there was a lack of information regarding the financial management of the institution due to prolonged integration of the management information systems (CARS), high turnover, and incompatibility of people and processes, there were essentially no tracking or controls in place for two years to monitor the universitys spending. The spending had become substantial due to the increased rather than decreased fixed operational and human resources expenses. Many of the original assumptions that were projected to streamline operations, decrease costs, and achieve economies of scale were not realized.

299

For example, the combination/consolidation plan initially designated San Diego Scripps Ranch as the main campus (which the president had referred to as the flagship campus), where the universitys central administration would be located. Instead, the presidents System Office was kept open in downtown San Francisco, which required money to be allocated for renting expensive office space, and frequent travel by the president and some of her staff between San Diego and San Francisco, where they divided their time. The plan also originally entailed discontinuing the lease of the CSPP-San Diego Cornerstone campus and moving that campus operations to the San Diego Scripps Ranch campus. However, the lease on the Cornerstone campus had to be continued because there was not enough physical space on the Scripps Ranch campus to accommodate everyone from the CSPP-San Diego Cornerstone campus. Consequently, the USIU Industrial/Organizational (I-O) Psychology program and CSPP Organizational Psychology program were combined in the newly formed College of Organizational Studies and kept open (for those at CSPP) and moved (for those at USIU) onto the San Diego Cornerstone campus. These unanticipated costs were counteracted through a series of layoffs and cuts in programs, which had been made through the academic program review, and the elimination of staff and services in areas such as student life/ student affairs. Other problems that arose which, in turn, affected the finances and financial management of the university, were a result of the actions, and, in some cases, inactions, taken by the personnel, staff members, and administrators who held key positions and were responsible for the overall management and leadership of the university. Issues

300

regarding personal integrity, honesty, accountability, transparency, disclosure, and capability among certain top-level people ensued. This eventually resulted in a lack of trust and confidence in the leaders and administrators and their ability to lead the institution effectively. A lack of structure also was to blame for the ineffective management. Employees were working in overlapping and vertical positions, such as the two vice-presidents for Enrollment and Student Services, who were basically working side by side and operating ineffectively, as their roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships were unclear and unmonitored. Further, the Financial Aid Director in San Diego did not report to anyone and, over time, granted approximately $3 million in financial aid, which contributed to the universitys main loss of revenue. The ineffective merger management and leadership ultimately resulted in the institutions financial collapse, as the university had spent its entire cash reserves, was operating with a deficit of $7 million after the second year of the merger, and was eventually placed on Show Cause status by WASC. A Perfect Storm On February 19, 2003, a colloquium was held in Green Hall on the Scripps Ranch campus to discuss budget issues that were swirling around AIU (Colloquium, 2003, pp. 1-2). Students were told that undergraduate tuition would be increased by 30% over the following two years and that graduate tuition would be increased by 8-10% the following year, despite the fact that programs and services were being cut. In addition to tuition increases, students were told that further cutbacks would be taking place in university funds allocated for international students who were working on campus. Students also were also told that the universitys lease on the property that contained the

301

dormitory complexes (Alpha and Beta) and the tennis courts would not be renewed because the property was going to be acquired by the City of San Diego as eminent domain for the construction of a middle school. In other words, the campus size and facilities would be cut in half. This information was not well-received, and students, faculty, and staff were already upset by the rounds of layoffs and cuts to programs and services that had taken place. The AIU president and administration needed to address the concerns of the students, faculty, and staff at the colloquium carefully, as they were already pressing peoples tolerance and patience for the inadequacies regarding the mismanagement of the merger. Many tough questions were asked, and it was getting difficult for the president to maintain her composure, as she felt that she was being personally attacked. One student in particular asked why he should continue to stay enrolled at the university, to which the president responded with a suggestion that he was free to leave. This response sent a shocked gasp through the room and [the student who asked the question] quickly exited. Another student then asked, If you cant persuade one student to be here, how do you expect to persuade 2,500? Undergraduates faced the most frustration and confusion from the declared changes when they asked what their tuition fees were paying for (Colloquium, 2003). Other questions by students were as follows: Its understandable [that] some lay-offs must occur, but when individuals who have worked here for more than 15 years are being let go without reasonable notice what effect does this have on the remaining employees? The lay-offs have impacted the morale and atmosphere on campus. There are rumors that the university still does not have a working budget. Why arent the business professors, a key asset and resource to the university who understand and teach business in areas such as accounting and finance, not utilized in any of the key business aspects of running this university? The student body is deeply concerned over the administrations lack of budgeting and financial management skills.

302

What steps are being taken to correct this situation and improve the perception held by the student body? What criteria were used to determine the increase in the Presidents salary? A dorm was renovated for the President and her staff members for when they stay on the San Diego campus yet the remainder of the dorms continue in a poor state for the students who live in them. How is the President helping to keep university operating costs low with her weekly airline flights and travel expenses? What is the rationale for the President to have such an expensive office in the Fishermans Wharf area of San Francisco that is not even located on a campus? Why cant students receive increased scholarships to compensate for the drastic increases in tuition? For those of us who have decided to remain loyal to this institution despite its current state of distress (something, by the way, that should not be taken for granted), we expect to see corrective actions made to solve the problems plaguing our university. (Colloquium, 2003, p. 1) Students, however, were not the only ones to express serious concern and dissatisfaction with the way the university was being operated, managed, and led during this time. Many faculty and staff members, particularly on the San Diego campus and from USIU, had been upset by the process used and decisions made to eliminate many of the programs and services offered, including the discontinuation of several undergraduate programs and cuts made in student life and services. Additionally, faculty members on the Alameda campus petitioned to unionize, as they feared for their job security and voice in how the university was being run. In turn, faculty from all campuses voted no confidence in the presidents ability to effectively lead the institution. Meanwhile, it was time for WASC to do their scheduled special site visit. WASC 2003 Special Site Visit During October 2830, 2003, WASC made a special site visit to the presidents System Office in San Francisco to follow up on a previous special visit that had taken place in the spring of 2002, which focused on the reorganization and the merger. During the 2003 visit, the WASC team raised concerns that the university was facing an operational deficit of approximately $1.5 million, a figure that was much larger than the

303

institution anticipated. In fact, the actual domestic operating deficit was $1.9 million, which was confirmed after a 10-month delay and costly audit. The team noted that, although there is not a great deal of collective wisdom when it comes to university mergers, care and oversight in the form of cost containment was necessary and will require substantial changes in the way the University operates (WASC Visiting Team Report for Special Site Visit of October 28-30, 2003). Additionally, WASC warned that the operational concerns regarding the reorganization that had been underway for CSPP/Alliant University should not take precedence or attention away from critical issues such as revenue generation and cost control. During a follow-up conference call on June 5, 2003, WASC requested an update on FY 2002-03. It was then disclosed that the university would probably post an operating deficit of about $7 million and no cash reserves. When pressed for reasons for the deficit during the telephone call, university officials were unable to identify any specific items. The special 2003 visit was scheduled to review the financial condition of the university and to assess the universitys ability to oversee its financial affairs at the board, central administration, and campus levels. The WASC team also requested that the university disclose in its Institutional Report, to prepare for the site visit, any other information the University believes will enable the Commission to understand its situation better (Commission letter, July, 3, 2003; as cited in WASC Visiting Team Report for Special Site Visit of October 28-30, 2003). After reviewing the Institutional Report, WASC concluded that the university seemed to be: unrealistic about the nature of the crisis facing the university, and overly optimistic about the extent to which the current problems facing the university have been addressed and the prospects for solid future financial performance.

304

[T]he report failed to provide adequate information about the problems faced by the institution and even failed to mention a vote of no confidence in the President from faculty at all locations and the faculty senate, or the move by faculty at the Alameda campus to unionize. (WASC Visiting Team Report for Special Site Visit of October 28-30, 2003) When the WASC team made its special 2003 site visit, it met with the chair of the board of trustees, the chair of the finance committee of the board, the president of the university, members of the presidents cabinet, academic deans, selected staff members, members of the board of trustees (including student and faculty representatives), members of the faculty senate, and the universitys audit firm. In addition, the team reviewed financial and planning documents as well as the minutes of various university committees and the board. Many who were interviewed by the team indicated that the troubles that faced the institution were much broader and deeper than just financial operations, including serious concerns about quality, decision making, and leadership. These interviews influenced the scope of the teams review, the nature of the teams concerns, and, ultimately, the findings. In other words, this was not a simple financial review (WASC Visiting Team Report for Special Site Visit of October 28-30, 2003). WASC Team Findings AIU entered the 2002-2003 fiscal year in financial disarray. At times, the institution was literally out of financial control (WASC Visiting Team Report for Special Site Visit of October 28-30, 2003). The move to centralize the CSPP campuses into a university structure (with the new name Alliant University) proved to be much more complicated and difficult than anticipated, and the resulting institution began with an inexperienced and relatively understaffed central administration. In addition, the reorganization did not achieve the promised cost savings or efficiency.

305

On July 1, 2001, CSPP/Alliant University merged with USIU, an institution with a history of financial difficulties. According to the special visit report (WASC Visiting Team Report for Special Site Visit of October 28-30, 2003), joint planning did not take place until all due diligence activities were completed. Thus, there was virtually no opportunity for joint planning during the year prior to the combination. Yet, the institutions finished their due diligence and merged. This action compounded the complicated problems that were already facing the institution, and stretched the central administration beyond its ability to manage. After some starts and stops in attempting a conversion to a new computer platform, AIU decided to process financial transactions on each legacy institutions computer system while simultaneously proceeding with the conversion. Just before the merger, a new vice-president of finance and administration/CFO was hired and began to work with the two competing and sometimes uncooperative staffs from the legacy institutions. Each group wanted to continue processing transactions in their own, established way, even though, in some cases, the processes were at odds with each other. Over the year, it appeared that little progress was made in the conversion to a new platform, the introduction of a new chart of accounts, or the application of a consistent method of processing documents. Budget reports were not available, and managers had little, if any, financial information to assess their progress in revenue generation or cost containment. In addition, the university experienced substantial turnover in the finance and financial aid departments, and many critical positions were not replaced in a timely manner. This turnover of personnel, through numerous layoffs and voluntary

306

resignations, included the CFO, Controller, Financial Aid Director, VP of Enrollment and Student Services, and Provost. This turnover also left the university with an enormous information gap. When the domestic deficit reached an unexpected $1.9 million, no substantive actions were taken, and the new CFO continued to assure all parties that a successful conversion was imminent and that the fiscal year (FY) 2001-02 deficit was due to the extraordinary expenses associated with the merger. In January 2003, the university instituted a layoff of 26 persons, for an annualized reduction of $600,000. The core faculty remained intact, but all other departments were reduced. The team noted that it did not appear that careful or collaborative planning took place regarding the choice of persons or programs to be eliminated. These cuts further reduced the institutions ability to support its operations, and the team was concerned that many of the departments of the university had been downsized to the point that the quality of the services had been compromised. Although all departments had been affected by the layoffs, in the last round, Student Services was targeted. The team was concerned that these layoffs had negatively affected the students experiences at the university. Continued declines in undergraduate enrollment suggested that a major element of the USIU combination, the addition of an undergraduate community, was in jeopardy. The undergraduate Arts and Sciences Division lost 40% of the undergraduate applicant pool with the elimination of six of the eight majors. The opportunity costs of these cuts needed to be considered. The team expressed unease with the ability of a graduate school to absorb an undergraduate program and give it appropriate attention to the attenuate student life issues. The team was unsure of the

307

impact on the quality of service provided by these now skeletal academic and administrative departments. Faculty and students who were interviewed mentioned this concern repeatedly. The team was told that this concern was a major factor in the vote of no confidence in the president by the faculty. The university believed that, with this personnel reduction, the deficit would be eliminated. However, the deficit had increased to $7 million, and no one could offer a clear and understandable reason for it. According to an operating statement, it appeared that financial aid awards were overspent by $3.3 million. The 2002/2003 deficit of $7 million required that the university deplete its cash reserves and secure a bridge loan to continue its operations for the fiscal year: Throughout the two fiscal years, 2002 and 2003, the Board and the President did not respond effectively to investigate the reason for the wildly-changing surplus/deficit numbers, the lack of monthly reporting statements, or the slowness to convert to the new system. Their inaction appears to have placed the very existence of the University in serious jeopardy. Interviews by the visiting team suggests that the deficits resulted, in some part, from the conflicting cultures of the two institutions and the reorganization of the former CSPP that was introduced prior to the combination with USIU. In effect, the move from a decentralized, four-campus environment to a centralized structure removed clear management authority and incentives for financial responsibility. [T]he visiting team was unable to evaluate why AIU senior leadership ignored clear warning signals that indicated fiscal stability was at risk. The team is concerned, moreover, that the trustees see the problems only as financial. The Board minutes are mute to issues of faculty unrest as evidenced by a petition to unionize and by their initiatives to vote a lack of confidence in the President. These questions raise the larger issue of the Boards ability to assess progress by AIU in meeting its responsibility to students. Despite the steps that have been taken, some of which are positive, the Special Visit Team finds little basis for the Commission to have confidence in the institutions future performance given the issues that arise in this report. This is an institution in crisis. (WASC Visiting Team Report for Special Site Visit of October 28-30, 2003)

308

The Rebuttal It is standard practice that, whenever WASC executes a site visit and report, the institution under review has the opportunity to respond to the report to correct errors of fact and give any other replies, statements, or feedback regarding the report. AIU administrations response to the site teams findings and conclusions was, This special site visit occurred at one particular moment within a 2 year period of unrelenting postmerger change that has included both the tearing down and rebuilding of academic and administrative structures (AIUs Response to WASC Visiting Team Report for Special Site Visit of October 28-30, 2003, February 2004). In addition, the university reported that it had made substantial improvements since the site visit, including restoring financial controls and financial operations; discounting tuition; hiring qualified personnel to fill key positions; creating a University Council made up of university constituencies; initiating a Renew AIU conference to implement shared governance; and instituting a board-developed Plan of Action (AIUs Response, February 2004). The rebuttal to the WASC visit stated that the university was not prepared for the site visit, during which the president had to leave early to attend to the wildfire situation in San Diego. The university also had just completed a program review in which major cuts were made, and people were understandably upset. Lastly, the university had not completed its audit, so the numbers were not ready. WASC Issues Show Cause After WASC considered both the site visit team report and the universitys response, the Commission concurred with the site visit teams evaluation of the university to be operating significantly out of compliance with Commission standards

309

and issued a Show Cause sanction. WASC also denied the universitys request for a second site visit. Post-show Cause After WASC issued the Show Cause order, AIU immediately began notifying students, staff, faculty, and alumni regarding the sanction, explaining that the university had one year to show cause why it should not lose its accreditation. The notification meetingsa series of question-and-answer sessions open to everyone on all six California campuseswere difficult. Morale at the university, already low, declined further. Some expressed doubts about the universitys survival. Their concerns echoed what WASC had communicatedthat AIU was suffering crises in multiple areas: finances, leadership, integrity, and confidence. After the WASC Commission Action, the university replaced several key leaders, including the university president, the chair of the board of trustees, two vice-presidents, and three board members. The university also responded to the outstanding formal complaints and grievances that students filed with WASC and appointed an ombudsperson to address any complaints that were unable to be resolved by a local site, department, or unit. A university task force was formed regarding governance, decision making, and alignment. Two WASC-related task forces relevant to the management of fiscal and human resource matters were created: one addressed strategic planning and the other addressed fiscal and human resources. Four task forces composed of faculty members, academic administrators, students, staff members, and a board of trustees liaison were established to help bring the university into compliance with WASC standards.

310

Exit AIU President: Enter Acting President After the AIU president stepped down, the dean of what had previously been the California School of Organizational Studies stepped in as acting president, interim provost, and WASC Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO). He chaired an Ad Hoc Communications Committee and a Values and Culture Task Force, which drafted a report titled Transition to Trust and outlined communications guidelines as the university went through a period in which it reexamined its goals, values, and strategic plan as part of larger University reform and renewal effort that seeks to enhance shared governance, to encourage evidence-based decision-making, and to develop structures and practices that will allow the University to better fulfill its educational mission (Alliant International University Communications Values and Guidelines Ad Hoc Communications Committee Report). The report noted that culture played a large part in the communication style of organizational administrators and members. The report highlighted values that everyone needed to embrace for the institution to operate ethically and effectively (Levin & Gottlieb, 2005; Levin, Proctor, & Thibault, 2001) These values are: (a) accountability; (b) organizational coherence; (c) professional respect; (d) service; (e) clear and evidence-based financial reporting; (f) honesty and consistency; (g) inclusion; (h) timeliness (addressing issues promptly); and (i) trust. These values then helped to formulate the universitys core values, which are still in place today (Alliant International University, 2009). After these values were established, everyone worked to get the university back on track. WASC had sanctioned the university to show cause for its accreditation, and there was a great deal to be done to revitalize the institution. One faculty member recalls this experience, saying:

311

It really forced us to work together as one entity was when we were placed under Show Cause. This is one step away from closing down the institution. So the petty rivalries suddenly became trivial compared to keeping the university afloat and not losing our accreditation. This trauma focused members of the Institution on survival and thats when it became clear that we were all in this together and our realities were the same. Once we nearly went bankrupt and WASC put us on Show Cause it was much easier to get peoples attention. These issues cut across all boundaries and locations, not just San Diego where some of the stressors were leftover from the physical combination. (Alliant Faculty Member, 2009) The Resurgence of Alliant The new Alliant management team put into place a six-point plan. The agenda included: (a) retain Alliants accreditation by fixing the problems that had been identified in the WASC reports and action letters; (b) manage the immediate accreditation crisis and morale, changing Alliants focus from one of crisis to one of opportunity; (c) contain costs so that Alliant would end its fiscal year as much in the black as possible, helping to begin the process of restoring the universitys reserve fund; (d) maximize retention of currently enrolled students; (e) maximize new student enrollments; and (f) increase nontuition sources of revenue. In less than three months, this management strategy and the actions taken to implement it helped to coalesce efforts and position the university to take necessary steps to move forward and Show Cause. Since the leadership change, substantial progress was made in developing and using monthly financial management reporting and projections to take active steps to improve the universitys financial situation and, as a result, the Universitys FY 2004 financial position improved from the prior year due to improved budget construction, budget management, and spending reductions. As a result of the Show Cause action, several key foundations declined to continue funding Alliant. However, despite the

312

sanction, the university aggressively pursued its fundraising activities and raised its thenlargest private gift, $250,000, in March 2004. That same month, 544 faculty, staff, and students responded to an online survey, sharing aspects of Alliant that made them proud and demonstrated engagement by contributing suggestions regarding how to solve key problems. In April 2004, 76 faculty members and dozens of students volunteered to call accepted students to encourage them to attend Alliant. The university also received a TRIO Upward Bound Grant of $220,000 over five years, several smaller grants of $40,000 or less, and contracts for the design schematics and construction development for the Center for Innovation in Behavioral Health (CIBH). The first of these contracts was $393,000 for the design schematic phase from the Health and Human Services Agency (HRSA) of the United States Government. In addition, Alliant received its second year of a Title V grant, which provided over $400,000 per year to the university, and was used to create an Academic Success Center (ASC) to provide academic support primarily to undergraduate students. The San Francisco Bay campus was moved from its Alameda location to join the system-wide office in a single location in the Fishermans Wharf area of San Francisco, with a larger combined shared space and a lower cost than would have been incurred with two separate locations and an administrative office that is now physically connected with a campus: The resurgence of hope at Alliant derives from the changes instituted since the Action Letter was issued. A number of changes have been implemented in the financial management of the organization. Extraordinary efforts have been directed at retaining currently enrolled students and to bringing in new students. Communications with constituencies have improved due to increased sharing of information, actions, and decisions made. Accountability and performance expectations have increased. A new spirit of optimism has come to prevail in the

313

University and, increasingly, there is the belief that the University can solve the problems WASC identified and regroup as a stronger institution, better positioned to survive, and, in time, flourish as the result of the changes it has made. (WASC Progress Report, June 2004) Enter Interim (and Later Permanent) University President Geoffrey Cox, Ph.D. After an interim president was chosen, the acting president became the provost and Vice-President for Academic Affairs (VPAA). A university-wide presidential search committee, composed of faculty, students, administration, and the board, selected Geoffrey Cox as the interim president in 2004, who later became the university president in 2005. He had worked as the Vice-Provost and Dean for Institutional Planning at Stanford from 1992-2000 and, prior to that, was the Director of Financial Planning and Budgeting and Associate Provost at the University of Chicago (where he received his Ph.D.) from 1988 to 1992. He also worked briefly for a for-profit, online education company called UNext. When asked what drew him to Alliant, the president said that he believed it was a good match for the things he knew most about: The University was clearly having financial issues and I had been a financial planner and a budget director for universities for most of my career. Also its issue with accreditation was on the table and I had served on the WASC Commission for 6 years while I was at Stanford so I had experience with accreditation. I felt that those were two things that played to my strengths. I thought it was a very interesting institution. Having been on the for-profit side, I get interested in nontraditional places. I think there is a very interesting change going on in higher education now in which there is room for a lot of innovation and I think Alliant could develop into something quite interesting. (Alliant International University President, 2009) During this transition period, the interim president worked with administration to stabilize the universitys finances: We had to stop the bleeding and I was fortunate that in the six months or so before I came in the University had really gotten control over the finances and the systems for tracking it. The finance group did a good job of figuring out where

314

the money was and where it was going, had cleaned up the past audits, and managed to produce a budget that was balanced. There was a fairly stable base by the time I got here. But we didnt really know how to go from there. My first order of business was to figure out what might hold these two institutions together; what were the big themes; missions; where we could create. Ive often said I felt like people handed me a box of old spare parts of a machine, but you dont really know what the machine is supposed to look like. So you pull out a gear here and a tube there and a hose here and you have to try and figure out how to make something out of it. Thats what it really felt like. We had this odd collection of programs, under-resourced and struggling programs, some real outliers, some things that didnt quite fit, and then some that were quite good. It was an array of things that didnt really add up to a real university. We worked hard that first summer on trying to figure out a new vision for the place. That is what led to the Renaissance Plan. There had also been some more traditional strategic planning activities going on, but Im not really much of a fan of strategic planning because I find it often misses the mark. To put it differently, many of the strategic plans Ive seen, at least in universities, take the basic structure as is and then develops a set of individualized goals for each component of the institution. That was the kind of thing that was going on here at the time. I didnt think it really addressed the big issues; what do we have here and what can we make of it? It wasnt very imaginative or creative. There wasnt very much integrated conversation going on. A lot of it was pie in the sky ideas. It wasnt really a plan. It was more of a wish. There were fancy diagrams about values and academic integrity, but it was kind of a bunch of pictures that didnt really add up to anything. I still have the huge binder in my office. You can sit there and read it, but I dont think it would give you a clue on what to do. I kind of threw all that out and said weve got to start over on a much more fundamental level. (Alliant International University President, 2009). The Renaissance Plan: A New Beginning With the help of his administrative team, the president drafted what he called The Renaissance Plan, which outlined his proposed vision for what the university could be: Overall, this is an optimistic visionone that builds upon the ambitions and visions that fueled both legacy institutions and their merger, but one that also takes into account the challenges and opportunities that confront us today. This paper calls for a renaissance of our institution and a recommitment to important values that help bind us together as a community of scholars, practitioners, colleagues, and citizens. (Renaissance Plan, 2004)

315

Proposition 1: Alliant is a Professional Practice University Most simply, being a professional practice university means delivering education for professional careers through programs combining theory, practice, scholarship, and cultural competency taught by faculty who are scholars and who also are knowledgeable about current and innovative practice issues. Such an institution is engaged in multiple ways with its local/global communities both for the betterment of those communities and to ensure that professionals are trained in ways that will be responsive to changing community needs. (A Professional Practice University in a Multicultural/International Context: Capacity and Preparatory Report Presented to WASC, January 2009) Part of the legacy of the previous institutions was that they prepared students for professions in psychology, education, management, business, and other arenas. CSPP had always been a professional school, and those who were part of CSPP identified strongly with that. The importance of adopting an identity of this kind is that it provides a foundation for the articulation of our mission, values and strategies (Strategic Planning Task Force Committee memo, July 2004). The professional practice model implies both a goal and a method of education (The Missions We Serve, November 2005). Alliant has since developed Professional Practice Competencies for students, faculty, and staff, contextualized within the framework of Alliants Core Values (Integrity, Intellectual Advancement, Diversity, Social Responsibility, Innovation, Stewardship, and Community and Partnership): We think that by working with the concept of a Professional Practice University, extending it and adapting it to our particular situation, we have an opportunity to establish an identity for Alliant that both binds it together as an institution and creates a distinctive image in the world of higher education. (Strategic Planning Task Force Committee memo, July 2004) Proposition 2: Alliant is an Applied Social Science University The disciplines that we teach and practice at Alliant all derive, historically and intellectually, from theories and observations about human behavior and social interaction, and they extend through applied methods of intervention,

316

management, therapy and education. The phrase social science has come to mean a fairly narrow set of disciplines: sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, etc. By that phrase I mean something largerperhaps human science better describes the concept I have in mind. Either phrase is meant to offer a wide lens, covering a broad range of scholarship and application from therapies and pedagogies that apply to individuals and small groups, from process improvements in organizations and businesses to analyses of markets and economies and to public policies that impact communities and entire societies. In my view, the concept of applied social science easily covers all of the graduate disciplines in which we currently offer programs, as well as others we might look to incorporate in the future. Whether we are educating business leaders, teachers, therapists or policy makers, we are preparing our students to make important differences in the quality of life in the various spheres where people live, learn, and work. (Renaissance Plan, 2004) This idea of an applied social science university is very similar to the idea behind USIUs School of Leadership and Human Behavior. Both are purposefully broad enough to encompass a wide range of disciplines, professions, and fields. Another key component of the Renaissance Plan was the proposal to restructure undergraduate education (Proposition 3). The goals of the proposal were to: (a) develop an approach to undergraduate education at Alliant that is consistent with the mission of a professional practice university and which enhances the academic reputation of the overall institution; (b) focus on areas in which Alliant can compete with strong academic programs; and (c) create programs that will contribute financially to the institution over the long term. These proposals are intended to form the basis for a new commitment to undergraduate education that will be more fully integrated in the institution and representative of its core strengths (Proposal to Restructure Undergraduate Education at Alliant International University, 2005). After the proposal to restructure undergraduate education was accepted, a committee was set up to phase out the first two years of the baccalaureate curriculum and

317

move to the degree-completion model. This plan also included eventually expanding the undergraduate programs to Alliants other campuses, starting with the Fresno campus. Strategies were formulated to overcome resistance, and learning outcomes were created. International and Multicultural Competence In addition to the Renaissance Plan, other ideas were discussed and initiated regarding the new identity of Alliant International University. One idea that arose from these discussions was to combine the multicultural orientation of CSPP with the international focus of USIU. Both legacy institutions incorporated these elements in their curriculum, but their identities were still embedded among the faculty and others who remained from the previous institutions. However, these concepts, which in the beginning of the merger integration had divided the faculty of CSPP and USIU, were now being brought together: T]he intersection of multicultural and international includes: race and ethnicity; gender; age and generations; sexual orientation; disabilities, immigration status, socioeconomic status (including class, economics, politics); worldview; regional, national and world cultural dimensions; acculturation dynamics; languages; religion and spirituality; educational status; and power/privilege. Alliant is also committed to recruiting a faculty and staff that is diverse in all dimensions. (A Professional Practice University in a Multicultural/International Context: Capacity and Preparatory Report Presented to WASC, January 2009) These concepts of internationalism and multiculturalism were brought together with the formation of I-MERIT (International Multicultural Education, Research, Intervention and Training) which works to infuse these concepts into all of Alliants programs, policies, services, and activities. Through the I-MERIT Institutional Plan (Alliant International University, 2006), the following values, beliefs, and guiding principles were developed:

318

Respect. We respect and value diverse ways of learning, knowing, and accomplishing goals. Dialogue and Engagement. We can foster individual and collective growth and adaptation by listening to many voices, re-examining assumptions, and working through conflict. Partnership. We can generate better solutions and increase our chances of success by collaborating across differences. Continuous Learning. A major component of effectiveness is the extent to which we can continuously expand our knowledge and awareness both individually and collectively. Responsibility. Each of us benefits when we take responsibility, personally and collectively, for building a more inclusive community. Humility. No one person or perspective has the whole answer. Commitment. Building inclusion is a long-term process and requires ongoing commitment. The I-MERIT Institutional Plan consisted of an agenda of: (a) creating an IMERIT Center with a director, coordinators, and campus committees; (b) fostering community-building and service through events and activities, including the observance of religious/spiritual/cultural holidays by creating calendars with a Theme for the Year; (c) providing diversity training (both online and on-ground) as well as cross-campus support and resources; and (d) linking global/multicultural learning and competencies with outcomes and assessment measures. A three-year strategic plan and a mission statement were put into place. The mission of I-MERIT is, To partner with all sectors of Alliant to secure the vision of a multiculturally competent and globally responsive university (I-MERIT Strategic Plan, December 2008). The University then worked to incorporate I-MERIT into its mission.

319

As adopted in fall 2008, Alliants new mission statement establishes multiculturalism/internationalism as one of the four primary components that defines Alliant as a professional practice university. Alliant also has organized research and outreach programs aimed at certain underserved groups (e.g., Latinos, Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender (LGBT) people and people with disabilities). (A Professional Practice University in a Multicultural/International Context: Capacity and Preparatory Report Presented to WASC, January 2009) Alliants New Mission Now that Alliant had defined its new areas of focus and distinction, it needed to be coupled with a new mission statement. A publication brochure titled The Missions We Serve, which laid the foundation for the creation of Alliants new mission statement, was circulated. It emphasized promoting professional practice, serving individuals and communities, promoting international and multicultural competence, encouraging research and scholarship, expanding access and opportunity, and pursuing educational innovation. The following mission statement was created for Alliant International University: Alliant International University prepares students for professional careers of service and leadership, and promotes the discovery and application of knowledge to improve the lives of people in diverse cultures and communities around the world. From this, Alliant developed what it calls its Four Pillars of Success that encompass its overall mission. These are: 1. Education for Professional Practice: Alliants competency-based educational model is designed to assure that students graduate fully equipped to make immediate, positive contributions to their communities and to their profession. 2. Applied Research and Scholarship: Conducting research and producing scholarly presentations and publications serve to assure that practicing professional stay current with advancements in their fields. Alliants approach to research is applied (as compared to theoretical) so that the scholarly activities which our students and faculty engage in have real world utility and application.

320

3. Multicultural and International Competence: Alliant is an inclusive institution committed to serving diverse populations around the world by preparing professionals to work effectively across cultural and national boundaries. The University strives to accomplish this by increasing the number of professionals working in underserved areas, and by understanding and responding to the needs of diverse communities. Among the important values of Alliant is a belief that all students should have an awareness of, respect for and curiosity about multicultural and international similarities and differences. 4. Community Engagement: Alliants mission includes a fundamental commitment to community engagementthe belief that practicing professionals must be able to contribute to the needs and interests of the communities in which they work. As a result, students are encouraged, and in many programs required, to engage in community-based projects and services during their training while at Alliant. One of the important ways success is measured is by the impact our graduates have, both directly and indirectly, on the welfare of individuals, families, organizations and communities. Several of Alliants schools, including the Hufstedler School of Education, the California School of Forensic Studies, Alliant School of Management, and the San Francisco Law School, also developed their own, individual mission statements: HSOE Mission Statement: The Shirley M. Hufstedler School of Education at Alliant International University prepares competent, confident, and conscientious educational leaders to promote and empower personal growth, academic success, and professional achievement for all in a global society. We accomplish this by offering our candidates exceptional preparation centered on multidisciplinary and holistic approaches to education. CSFS Mission Statement: The California School of Forensic Studies (CSFS) is dedicated to providing education and training in clinical forensic psychology and related fields to prepare individuals for clinical and private professional practice, teaching, research and community service in our diverse global society. CSFS strives to impact public opinion and policy through scientific research and evidence-based practices. To realize our mission, CSFS offers programs and services that meet the highest professional and ethical standards. ASM Mission Statement: The mission statement of Alliant School of Management is to prepare individuals for professional careers in business, management and public affairs. We develop exceptional, intellectually engaged and culturally sensitive leaders in all sectors of society. As scholars and practitioners we prepare our students to successfully address professional challenges with integrity and compassion with a view to advancing internationalism, multiculturalism and sustainability. 321

The Mission of SFLS: San Francisco Law School is dedicated to the providing the opportunity for a quality legal education to a diverse student population, many of whom are working full time jobs and have family responsibilities while attending law school. For 100 years, San Francisco Law School has been devoted to educating attorneys who embody the highest skills of the legal profession and are committed to the ethical practice of the profession. Since its earliest days, San Francisco Law School has been a model of non-discrimination, diversity and opportunity. Students at San Francisco Law School seek to better their own lives and that of their families. Historically, students are the first in their families to be in a doctoral program and, for some, the first to have graduated from college. In October 2011, the State Bar of California, Committee of Bar Examiners approved the expansion of San Francisco Law School programs to include a full time program. The full time program is a natural complement to our traditional evening program and provides students with greater options and flexibility. Reinstituting CSPPs Mission Statement After CSPP merged with USIU, the new universitys (AIU) leadership decided to dispense with CSPPs Mission Statement and start anew. This was a major blow to many of the CSPP faculty, who had worked hard on crafting CSPPs mission statement and fully embraced it: Getting rid of CSPPs mission statement hurt. It had been crafted with a lot of thought and a lot of hard work went into creating it. It is not your typical run-ofthe-mill generalized mission statement. It had a powerful language and a powerful message. It took about 3 years to finalize, but once it was complete, everyone championed it. People had it on their business cards, in classrooms. People knew it and could recite it. It was heartfelt and everybody owned it. (Former CSPP Faculty Member, 2009) Today, the values of Alliants administration and its corresponding I-MERIT have a different mindset, one that identifies and is aligned more with the founding elements of Alliants legacy institutions, and have thus reinstated the CSPP original mission:

322

CSPP Mission Statement: The mission of the California School of Professional Psychology is to provide the highest quality of education, training, research and service in professional psychology and related human service fields. CSPP strives to improve the quality of life by addressing major contemporary human social issues in a problemsolving way, fostering respect for human diversity in a multicultural society and combating discrimination in all its forms, especially racism, sexism, and heterosexism. In all of its activities, CSPP is committed to exhibiting the highest professional and ethical standard, addressing the needs of both individuals and organizations and serving those whom are underserved. Developing Alliants Strategic Position Since the new Alliant president began formulating his Renaissance Plan, engaging university constituencies in the plan, and assigning strategic planning task forces to assess and implement actions to execute the plan, much reflection has taken place regarding Alliants overall strategic direction and position in the marketplace. It has been widely agreed upon among the Alliant community engaged in this process that, to be a major player in the ever-competitive higher education market, the university needs to have a clear sense of who and what we are and what makes us distinct and then utilize and capitalize on that uniqueness to make the institution stand out rather than fit in with competitors. In exploring strategic issues, it is also important to identify goals, both individual and university wide, that help to define a distinctive Alliant identity and image. In an environment marked by increased competition for students and resources, it is critical that we better articulate Alliants unique features in a compelling and comprehensive way (Strategic Planning Task Force Memo, July 2004). One of the commonalities of Alliants legacy institutions was their distinct, and even radical, as one interviewee put it, missions and identities. Both institutions were extremely forward-thinking; and, although they were small in size compared to most,

323

they were determined to be a leader in higher education and change the world. This uniqueness and philosophy of mission is what drew students, faculty, staff, guest lecturers, and the philanthropic community to these institutions and continues to do so today. Summary The combining of CSPP/Alliant University and USIU in 2001 was intended to build a stronger university than either legacy institution could achieve on its own. The goal was to build on the unique strengths and qualities of both legacy institutions. However, the WASC Commission concluded from the post-combination visit in April and May of 2002 that Alliant needed to make substantial changes in the way it operated, particularly in terms of enrollment sustainability, finances, and leadership and governance. Financial and leadership problems resulted in Alliants ending FY 2002 with a $1.96 million deficit in domestic operations and, in June 2003, reporting an estimated operating deficit of close to $7 million for FY03. WASC scheduled a Special Visit in fall 2003 to review the state of the institutions finances and other relevant matters. During the Special Visit, conducted October 28-30, 2003, the Site Visit Team discovered that a number of substantive matters that affected the universitys accreditation status had not been included in the institutional report, including four no confidence votes in the universitys president by the faculties of the four campuses, and reports on the organization of a faculty union on the San Francisco Bay campus and organizing discussions being held at two other campuses, Los Angeles and Fresno (which have since unionized).

324

WASC determined that omissions regarding the universitys broader difficulties were failures of institutional integrity and rejected the Universitys request for a new Special Site Visit. They concluded that Alliant was not in compliance in three major areas of 2001 WASC Standards: (a) Institutional Leadership; (b) Financial Integrity, Control and Accountability; and (c) Institutional Integrity. WASC also raised concerns about the adequacy of Alliants grievance procedures and strategic plan and questioned whether academic quality had been affected by their financial problems. WASC notified the university in its February 27, 2004, Action Letter that it was issuing an order to show cause why accreditation should not be terminated effective March 20, 2005. Between the issuance of the Show Cause order and the November 2004 Special Site Visit, Alliant took a number of immediate corrective actions that were focused on WASC-identified issues, including leadership and governance changes, financial integrity and controls, strategic planning, and its student complaint and grievance process. Alliant hired a new vice-president for finance and administration and chief financial officer (CFO) in February 2004. The new CFO and his team steadily improved Alliants staffing and financial management, consolidating most fiscal functions in San Francisco under experienced staff and put into place more effective managerial accounting procedures and provided budget managers with access to real-time information. FY 2004 showed an increase in net assets of $37,754, of which $1,143 was a surplus from operations. This compared to a loss of $5.7 million in FY 2003. The universitys position improved greatly in FY 2004. These results also were supported by the universitys fundraising of $598,000 the fiscal year, an improvement from $365,000 in the prior year. The universitys new cash flow management resulted in the universitys

325

ending FY 2004 with $5.2 million in cash and cash equivalents; and the university obtained, but did not need to draw on, it line of credit during summer 2004. A new budget process for FY 2005 used academic schools as the unit of analysis and responsibility. Savings were budgeted at $2.3 million, and funds for reserve monies were set aside as non-restricted revenues. Although Alliant expected decreased enrollments due to the Show Cause accreditation status and built the budget based on 5% lower figures than in the prior year, final fall enrollments were only about 2% less than fall 2003 enrollments due to efforts made throughout Alliant related to student recruitment and retention as well as communication and improved morale. A WASC task force was established to develop a set of Core University Values. After much dialogue and discussion, the core values that emerged were: Integrity, Intellectual Advancement, Diversity, Social Responsibility, Innovation, Stewardship, and Community and Partnership. These values were adopted by all university governance groups, including the Faculty Senate, the Presidents Cabinet, the Staff Council, the Student Government Association, and the Board of Trustees, in February 2005. The values state: We hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards of conduct and adhere to the principles of mutual respect, fairness, honesty, and academic freedom. We honor and follow up on the commitments and promises we make. We strive to avoid conflicts of interest and openly disclose and work to promptly resolve those that do occur. We act in ways fully consistent with our core values and are committed to principled leadership at all levels of the institution. We commit to open, candid, and timely communications to ensure all constituencies are kept fully informed. After the Show Cause action, a Strategic Planning Task Force was commissioned to assess the universitys mission and vision. Some of these critical issues were

326

addressed in a climate survey, and results showed that faculty and staff overall supported the mission. The then-interim president focused strategic planning on four major areas critical to the university: (a) Undergraduate Education, (b) Graduate Education, (c) International Education, and (d) Distributed Learning. The work of four strategic planning committees and a paper on becoming a professional practice university became the basis for the Renaissance Plan, which was discussed throughout Alliant. An online survey also was conducted, and the results indicated broad university support of the plan. In addition, three related strategic support areas were targeted for improvement during the review period: reviewing faculty incentives and rewards, improving student services, and improving the usage of Alliant campuses, particularly the Scripps Ranch campus. Since that time, many parts of the plan have been implemented, and accreditation has been restored. Part 2: Research Questions Answered Questions in this section may not be in the same order as in Chapter 1 due to the need to develop a logical organization of the resulting material. Follow-up questions also were asked in addition to the original research questions during the interviews. The following questions and answers were the result of the interviews that took place with university officials who played a role in the merger/acquisition. Interviewee Background Information RQ1: Had any of the interviewees ever been involved in a merger or acquisition? If so, what was the context? The fact is that very few people in higher education have experience in college and university mergers, which has been evidenced in the literature. When asked this

327

question, a few interviewees cited their marriage as being their only form of experience with any kind of merger. The only interviewees who had been involved in a merger or acquisition were the USIU/Alliant General Legal Counsel; a CSPP/AIU Public Trustee and practicing lawyer, who was on the board during the time of the merger; and a faculty member in the Organizational Psychology program, who has considerable M&A consulting experience. The CSPP (and later AIU) president had served on corporate boards of companies that had gone through mergers, including a merger with a technology company and a bank. She said that she had some understanding of the difficulties in merging cultures: The main difference between university mergers and corporate mergers is there is less information in university mergers. In corporate mergers, you can do all kinds of analyses and simulations to predict outcome scenarios, but at CSPP/AIU we didnt have the resources or expertise to do that. There may also be a bit more intense territoriality and cultural issues in university mergers due to the longevity and history of combining institutions, but that is just an assumption based on my experience. It really depends on the circumstances. This merger was definitely more difficult than we had anticipated. When you are not driven by shareholder wealth, it is even more difficult. (Former CSPP/AIU, President, 2009) Pre-Merger/Acquisition Merger/Acquisition Background Information RQ2: Was there any research conducted on higher education mergers/acquisitions? After interviewing top university officials, it appears that there was not much research conducted on college and university mergers. The reasons given for this were that not much information was available on higher education mergers and the ones that were happening at the time were mostly takeovers (Hays, 2009).

328

We found that there was very little information and almost no data [on university mergers]. Most of the cases reported had failed because most of them were last attempts to survive. We tried to do research, but information was scarce. (Former USIU/AIU Dean, 2009) As part of the merger preparation, the former CSPP/Alliant University and new AIU president recommended that staff and faculty read the book Joining Forces by Mitchell Marks, a former professor in CSPPs Organizational Psychology program at the Los Angeles campus. The president also had talked with the president of National-Louis University which, at the time, was looking into merging with Roosevelt University. Those universities, however, decided not to merge because they believed it would be too difficult to combine the traditions, values, academic programs and strategies of the universities into one institution (Woolsey, 2004, para. 2). In other words, the difficulties associated with merging the cultural and institutional identities of these institutions were thought to be too great a challenge to undertake in a merger implementation. In summary, not much research was conducted on college and university mergers because, as interviewees cited, there was a lack of information on them at the time. RQ3: What were the original reasons/objectives for the merger/acquisition? One interviewee summarized the reasons/objectives of the combination as: (a) diversification of graduate programs; (b) acquisition of undergraduate programs; (c) combined fiscal strength; and (d) doing better together rather than separately (former CSPP/AIU Administrator, 2009). For USIU, the primary reason was financial. From the time that USIU declared bankruptcy in 1990, the university had been financially strained. Enrollment was stagnant, and fundraising was minimal (and difficult to perform after HRS bought the campus and the university no longer owned its buildings); consequently,

329

operating within tight budgets and cost containment became a regular operating practice at USIU, a strategy in which it is difficult to achieve future growth and sustainability. When HRS bought the campus property in 1993 and helped the university discharge its bankruptcy, it provided much-needed funds for USIU. Additionally, HRS provided further funding every year to help the university balance its budget. In turn, HRS was stabilizing an institution that likely could not survive on its own without making severe cuts to its programs and services. In May of 1999, HRS informed the USIU board of trustees that it was no longer able to provide financing to keep USIU operating. President Hays then sought other partners to help USIU, and its mission, continue; he eventually spoke with the CSPP president regarding how to strengthen both institutions: USIU wanted a partner to help finance its continuation and CSPP, which was in the middle of a very substantive reorganization to expand its offerings, wanted to diversify beyond professional psychology. The two entities thought that there would be great partnership opportunities which led to conversations about merging/combining. (USIU/Alliant General Counsel, 2009) According to the former CSPP/AIU president, The USIU President was looking for a way to save USIU and preserve as much of the University as was possible. USIU had some of the things CSPP was looking for: education, business, international students, and a campus. In turn, the reasons for and objectives to the merger correspond to the reasons and objectives found in the (higher education) M&A literature. RQ4: What were the major forces that drove the decision to merge? There are many forces and factors that drove the decision of CSPP/Alliant University to combine with USIU. CSPP was founded in 1969, and USIU had been renamed from Cal Western University around that same time. CSPP may have worked to

330

establish its name in the psychological community, but it did not have the same general kind of prestige and notoriety as other traditional, well-known private colleges and universities. The same was true for USIU in terms of its recognizability. There was a saying that USIU was the best-kept secret in San Diego (USIU/Alliant faculty member, 2009). Achieving Financial Sustainability As small, private, lesser-known institutions, both CSPP/Alliant University and USIU were tuition driven. USIU had been tuition driven since its founding. USIUs founding president, William Rust, was successful in raising money to start USIU. But then he would go back to the same sources so many times that eventually people grew tired of the constant solicitations and they stopped contributing. President Rust would also borrow money and not pay it back. The leadership of Dr. Rust got the university in a hole and lost the support of the community. Subsequent presidents after him tried to resurrect the University, but it was a significant burden and an uphill battle. (USIU/Alliant Faculty Member and Former Alliant Board Member, 2009). USIU had further problems. Enrollment was shrinking, the campus had considerable deferred maintenance, and faculty had not had raises in some time. After HRS could no longer continue its significant support, the USIU president began to actively seek a partner. USIU had worked hard to revitalize its alumni association, and USIU domestic alums were primarily educators and psychologists. By the same token, CSPP had a very active alumni base, and CSPP alums were practicing psychologists. Neither of these groups, however, is typically known to be a great benefactor to universities, so alumni fundraising was difficult. USIUs more affluent students tended to be students in international business, many of whom came from families who owned companies

331

overseas. After these students graduated, most would go back to their home country, or otherwise leave the U.S., and many were never to be heard from again. Giving money to university alma maters is typically an American tradition, not practiced elsewhere in the world. Consequently, international alumni do not usually donate to their universities. USIU did have an annual fund so it did get some money from alums, but the University certainly did not have deep pockets (Hays, 2009). Competition Rising competition also was a major force that drove USIU and CSPP to combine. In the early days of CSPP and USIU, these institutions may have had a first-mover advantage, but, in later years, new competition has emerged in the higher education marketplace, including for-profit institutions, many of which have large marketing budgets and are successful in catering to and dominating the adult student population. All higher education institutions now must compete with these contenders, which becomes increasingly difficult for financially strained colleges and universities. Back when CSPP and USIU were founded there were no Argosys and there were no Chicago Schools of Professional Psychology. So when it came to the delivery of professional psychology and other programs, USIU and CSPP were real competitors. These days, however, competition has become much more cutthroat. (USIU/Alliant General Counsel, 2009) The Need to Diversify Programs Graduate programs in psychology had become stagnant in terms of demand in California, which was overpopulated with psychologists. Enrollment declined in Clinical Psychology programsCSPPs bread and butter. The CSPP board of trustees was concerned about the future viability of the institution and made plans to diversify into other programs. The school began to diversify its psychology programs in the 1990s to 332

include two clinical programs, Ph.D. and Psy.D., as well as Health, Organizational Psychology, Culture and Human Behavior, and, eventually, a School of Education. CSPP also had begun planning to diversify further into areas such as business and undergraduate programs. When the opportunity to combine forces with USIU came along, it seemed like a natural fit (former CSPP/AIU, Administrator, 2009). In turn, the forces that drove the decision to combine correspond to the forces outlined in the literature on (higher education) mergers and acquisitions. RQ5: What were the expected benefits/synergies to be gained from the merger? The synergies and benefits that were expected to be gained from this merger correspond to the information obtained in the literature, including financial, campus facilities, programmatic, and mission/vision. Financial One of the main benefits of combining operations was to enhance the combined revenues of the institutions, which was estimated to be approximately $50 million. There was the potential for becoming bigger and widening the customer base (i.e., enrolling more students). The other added benefit would be the cost savings of combining operations and having one administration instead of two to achieve economies of scale. USIU needed a partner to help finance its operation, and CSPP/Alliant University was seeking to diversify and expand its operations. An additional aspect of the financial gains was the acquisition of real estate.

333

Campus Facilities CSPP/Alliant University did not own property; all of its campus buildings were leased space. Further, USIUs Member Corporation, HRS, owned the San Diego campus and leased it back to USIU. CSPP/Alliant Universitys purchase of the San Diego campus from HRS at a highly discounted rate would add a net asset base of $17 million to the combined institutions balance sheet as well as a true campus (which the president called the flagship campus) for CSPP/Alliant. CSPP always leased the space that it used. In turn, because CSPP didnt own its campuses, this made fundraising difficult. Unlike other colleges and universities that have buildings, walls, and halls to appeal to donors, CSPP didnt have such things to offer to prospective donors, and since CSPP was so tuition-dependent, more fundraising was needed. (CSPP Professor and Former CSPP/AIU Board Member, 2009) Programmatic Both presidents believed that this combination would result in a stronger university, both financially and academically. CSPP had APA-accredited psychology programs that could combine with USIUs psychology programs. In addition, USIU had other programs that CSPP/Alliant University intended to establish, such as business and undergraduate programs. Although USIUs psychology program was not APAaccredited, both institutions in San Diego were relatively familiar with each other. Many adjunct psychology faculty members taught at both USIU and CSPP-San Diego. CSPP/Alliant University also was in the process of starting a new School of Education, and USIU had Education programs. In addition, CSPP/Alliant University had an Organizational Psychology program that could be combined with USIUs Industrial Organizational (I/O) Psychology program. Thus, there was a genuine belief that,

334

programmatically, it was a good educational fit, or, as one interviewee called it, a match made in heaven. For CSPP/Alliant University, combining with a more traditional university such as USIU would help CSPP to achieve its goal of diversifying programs. CSPP/Alliant University wished to enter the undergraduate and international student market (and add business and education programs), and USIU had undergraduate, business, and education programs and a large international student population. There was a hope that adding undergraduate programs would help flip the triangle, as the majority of students at USIU and all of the students at CSPP were graduate students. A common assumption in universities is that a large undergraduate population helps to support graduate programs (former USIU Dean/AIU Administrator, 2009). It also made sense conceptually to have an undergraduate feeder so that the University could have some flow of students on a regular basis into the graduate programs like many other universities do. (CSPP/Alliant Faculty Member & Program Director, 2009) A further goal was to expand programs onto all campuses (i.e., expanding in-demand programs to urban locations such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego). My thought was that we could put USIUs and CSPPs Psychology programs in San Diego together and get a combined, bigger program through economies of scale. I also thought it was a great opportunity to move USIUs business and education programs onto CSPPs campus locations in those larger cities, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The idea was that, through those means, we could have a much bigger university. We could get much more tuition income from bachelors, master and doctoral programs by having them in several locations. (Hays, 2009) Compatible Missions: Internationalism and Multiculturalism In some ways, the mission of CSPP and the mission of USIU were seen as compatible. Perhaps the administration saw synergy in combining the international and

335

multicultural focuses (USIU Department Chair/AIU Administrator, 2009). For CSPP/Alliant University, becoming more international also was viewed as furthering the international expansion strategy (former CSPP/AIU Board Member, 2009). A former CSPP/AIU administrator said that a common thread in our tapestry is an institution that values education from an international perspective that values multicultural competence, diversity, and inclusion. Our efforts to recruit and retain diverse students, faculty, and staff from around the world and our devotion to modifying our curriculum, our teaching, and our thinking in relation to internationalism and multiculturalism are unifying forces. (Pittenger, 2001, p. 1) RQ6: Why was the particular institution (either CSPP/Alliant or USIU) chosen as a merger partner? USIU USIU President Hays had heard a rumor that CSPP intended to become more than a school of psychology. Enrollment in graduate psychology programs was slowing down for both CSPP and USIU, which is why CSPP was moving toward diversifying its programs into other areas outside of clinical psychology. Hays knew of CSPPs campus in San Diego and researched the locations of CSPPs other campuses. In addition to San Diego, CSPP had campuses in the San Francisco Bay area, Sacramento, Fresno, and the Los Angeles area. Hays saw these strategic locations, particularly in the large cities, as potentially favorable for both USIU and CSPP to combine forces and expand each institutions programs. With this idea in mind, he approached the CSPP president, and it was later agreed that an institutional merger/acquisition would accomplish both CSPP/Alliant University and USIUs strategic objectives for growth and sustainability.

336

However, not everyone on the USIU board was in agreement with the merger/acquisition, especially members who were alumni or who had been there for a long time. The president and his cabinet advocated to the board that this was a good decision. We were out of options. There was a very real possibility of having to shut down. I felt that it was better for us to continue even if it was under a different format than to close our doors for the good of our students, our alumni, and our faculty and staff. Once the USIU Board agreed to go forward, we started talking to the CSPP side. (Former USIU/AIU Dean, 2009) CSPP According to the former CSPP/AIU president, USIU wasnt on our radar until they came to us. A former CSPP/AIU public trustee further explained: We (CSPP) more stumbled upon this opportunity to acquire another institution rather than strategically pursued it. CSPP/Alliant Universitys decision to acquire USIU also was not a unanimous one. The CSPP president was the major proponent of the deal. Because CSPP/Alliant University was in the process of becoming a larger, more comprehensive institution, the idea of acquiring new programs, rather than creating them internally, was very appealing to her. In addition, the opportunity to acquire a campus with 160 acres of land (which later was reduced to 56 acres) at a highly discounted price also was very appealing, as it would immediately increase the institutions net assets on its balance sheet. CSPP/Alliant University did not own any property, and all of its campuses were leased office space. Owning a campus also would bring with it fundraising opportunities, wherein donors could have buildings named after them. However, despite all these

337

positive gains in acquiring an institution, not everyone agreed with this decision. According to a former CSPP/Alliant university public trustee: I didnt think this deal made any sense except as a financial move to beef up the balance sheet of CSPP/Alliant because the land that came with it was offered at a huge discount to fair market value; this would add to the schools net worth and allow the combined institution to borrow more favorably, do other things, and buy some financial time. CSPP/Alliant University had had some bad years financially. So while CSPP/Alliant University looked strong compared to USIU, it was still pretty weak. The acquisition would add millions to its net worth on its balance sheet. It was basically too good of a deal to pass up even though, during most of the negotiations, I did not think it was a good idea. In the end I was persuaded to go ahead with it. The other reasons for doing it, like expanding the student base and diversifying programs, I didnt think were compelling. CSPP had always been a graduate school and undergraduates are totally different from graduate students. Acquiring a residential campus where you had to worry about everything from date rape to drugs was not appealing to me. It was a lot of liability and responsibility that we were not well equipped to manage. But overall the scales slightly tipped in favor of the deal so I became a supporter, although I was never an avid supporter. In the end I voted for it for financial reasons, not because I thought the combination particularly made business or educational sense. (Former CSPP/Alliant University Public Trustee, 2009). Additionally, there was still the issue of CSPPs reorganization efforts that were not yet complete. Undergoing such a major institutional change could undermine and take attention away from the activities of transforming CSPP to Alliant University. Further, CSPP did not have the finances to properly execute such a deal. In fact, CSPP/Alliant Universitys chief financial officer resigned over this matter (Rozhon, 2008). The CFO for CSPP/Alliant University strongly urged against the merger/ acquisition and felt that we had too much on our plate to go into a deal like this. He believed that what we were doing with restructuring our own Institution was fundamentally more important and took precedent over this opportunity. He felt that simultaneously pursuing both endeavors would distract from the task at hand within our own institution and take us way into left field. He convinced all of us except the CSPP/Alliant University President, who wanted to do it anyway. So the CFO quit, and at about the same time USIUs CFO retired, after they had both

338

done the financial due diligence and came to the conclusion that the merger/ acquisition was not going to work financially. The response to that was telling CSPPs CFO to re-do the financials to make it work. So he played around with the numbers, made cuts here and there, and the CSPP/Alliant University President presented it to the Board as evidence that the merger/acquisition would work. We began to get excited over it and thought, if we really put our minds to it, we could make it work. We could make the undergraduate programs work. We could make it all work. A lot of energy was created around the enthusiasm for the deal. (Former CSPP/ AIU Senior VP, 2009). RQ7: Were there any other potential partners being considered for merger? If so, which ones? Generally, when institutions or organizations are looking for potential partnerships many opportunities and partners are explored. USIU explored several partnership opportunities, including partnerships with real estate developers and other for-profit organizations, before approaching CSPP/Alliant University. One developer brought his own architect and put together a master plan for the university, but then we never heard from him again, probably because he was unable to get financing. Another developer wanted to buy the campus outright and have us move to another educational facility, but then he lost interest. (Hays, 2009) Some developers encountered difficulties in persuading the Scripps Ranch Planning Committee, composed mainly of residents in the Scripps Ranch area, to approve development in their community. At one point, USIU was in discussions with a developer of senior living facilities. We thought this partnership might work because this kind of residential development would not put more cars on the road, cause more traffic congestion, etc., which was a major concern with the Scripps Ranch Planning Committee. But the Planning Committee voted 16 to 1 against it. (Hays, 2009) USIU also talked to English First (EF), an organization that teaches English to international students, and that leased dormitory and classroom space on the USIU

339

campus. EF was interested in buying part of the campus so that it could have a permanent facility; in return, USIU would gain benefits, such as recruiting international students, as EF had worldwide recruiting offices. However, that deal fell through. USIU was approached by another educational organization that was in the business of tutoring and testing and had wished to get into international higher education, particularly distance learning. That company ultimately went in a different direction and, instead, acquired international universities all over the world (Hays, 2009). RQ8: How did the due diligence and negotiations process take place? Due diligence and negotiations are important aspects of the M&A process and need to be examined accordingly. From the time after the Definitive Agreement was approved by both boards until the deal closed, considerable due diligence took place, and USIU was required to provide CSPP/Alliant University with information on nearly every aspect of the university that was available. The due diligence process was very systematic, detailed, and in-depth. Because USIUs assets were being acquired by CSPP, USIU requested far less information from CSPP than CSPP requested of them. The CSPP board put together a subcommittee and used consultants for its due diligence process; USIUs general counsel and CFO conducted most of USIUs due diligence. During the time that the academic programs were being negotiated between CSPP and USIU, the real estate deal also was being negotiated between CSPP and USIUs member corporation, HRS. Most of the negotiations were with HRS, as HRS owned the land and had input into what was going to happen with USIU. CSPP originally intended to buy 103 acres of land but could not afford to do so, as the land was appraised at $24

340

million, a figure that was substantially out of CSPPs price range. Consequently, instead of the originally proposed 103 acres, HRS negotiated selling 56 acres to CSPP, which contained the main campus buildings, at a discounted price of $7.5 million, with a 5-year, no-interest loan. Negotiations that involved USIUs international campuses were not resolved until the final agreement was approved. According to the former CSPP/AIU president: There were things going on in Mexico City and Kenya that we didnt understand, and no one could understand unless you could go there and see with your own eyes what was going on. Kenya had informal understandings not written on paper regarding financial obligations on the operations side, and Mexico City had some debt. After much deliberation, the Mexico City campus was acquired by CSPP/Alliant University, and the USIU-Kenya campus became an independent institution, retaining the USIU name. The former CSPP/AIU president mentioned that USIUs campus in Mexico City had some debt, although to what extent the due diligence that was conducted provided information on the specifics of this debt remains uncertain. Additional Negotiations and Due Diligence Information Included in the negotiations with USIU and CSPP was that the word International would be part of the new university name. We didnt know what the new name was going to be, only that it would have International in it (USIU/Alliant General Counsel, 2009). The two boards spent months trying to find a name other than Alliant. Alternative names discussed were California International University and Scripps International University, but most of the names were already taken. So thats what left us with Alliant. In the beginning we tried not to have Alliant be the go-forward name (USIU/Alliant General Counsel, 2009). CSPP, as had been the case when it

341

changed its name to Alliant University, was able to again retain the CSPP name within the new University (AIU). In addition, because USIU was forced to give up its name, the USIU dean of the College of Business was able to have the business school name changed to United States International College of Business (USICB) in order to keep some of the USIU legacy alive (former USIU/AIU Dean, 2009). A further issue that arose in the negotiations was staff member contracts. Several USIU senior administrators had previously been given somewhat huge golden parachutes in their contracts in case they were asked to leave in the event of a takeover situation, which nearly ended the deal with CSPP/Alliant University. There was some further negotiating, and CSPP settled on offering balloon payments to several USIU employees, which had not been part of the original budget projections. According to one interviewee, Many people on the USIU side felt that they were the ones in charge because they held all the trump cards (former CSPP/AIU Senior VP, 2009). Cultural Due Diligence Although (financial) due diligence examines and assesses what is disclosed on paper, the M&A literature also recommends examining, or auditing, potential partners on a deeper level, known as cultural due diligence. This form of due diligence considers the organizations cultural elements, such as operational procedures, employee relations, and other cultural issues (i.e., the way we do things or the way things are done around here) that arise once a merger or acquisition is implemented. Daniel and Metcalf (2001) stated that what makes an organization unique are those qualities that are not found in policy handbooks or training manuals. Although the finances, written policies, and other documents factor heavily into any M&A equation, attention also should be paid to the

342

cultural aspects, which appeared to have been neglected in this case and, in turn, most likely contributed to some of the cultural, operational, and human resource problems that were encountered during the implementation, as they were not discovered in the due diligence process. RQ9: Were constituencies (faculty, students, alumni, etc.) informed of the deal before it became official? If so, how were they informed? Faculty, students, staff, and others were not involved before the deal became official because boards are obligated to maintain confidentiality about such business proceedings. There were some initial communications to the institutions internal constituencies, but this information was not officially made public until after the Definitive Agreement was approved on November 17, 2000. The USIU president sent an informal memo to the USIU community on August 15, 2000, indicating that the USIU board was in discussions with CSPP/Alliant University. At that point we also got the Chair of the USIU Psychology Department in contact with faculty from the CSPP-San Diego campus to talk about combining the programs (Hays, 2009). Hays gave a formal statement to the USIU faculty on November 20, 2000, informing them of the deal; he also let them know that he would be retiring after the deal closed and that the CSPP/Alliant University president would be the new universitys president. The CSPP/Alliant University president sent an internal Frequently Asked Questions letter to CSPP constituencies, and the USIU President sent letters to internal and external constituencies and created some press releases with the help of a local PR firm after the Definitive Agreement was approved (Blumenstyk, 2000; Gembrowski, 2000; USIU, Alliant to Form New Schools, 2000; USUI and Alliant Combine, 2000).

343

Despite the fact that these communication efforts were made, many students felt that this was not adequate and that the timing and channels of communication were not satisfactory. One USIU student stated: [T]he method and timing used to inform us (the students) of this merger was made with poor judgment that demonstrates insensitive consideration towards the student body. Only afterwards were we (the students) made aware of a statement made by the USIU President to the faculty. Most of the students were informed through emails and letters sent during finals, which showed total disregard to effectively communicate to students what was happening to USIU. Students were busy preparing for finals in which their attention was directed elsewhere when the merger was communicated. Students thus have either had a delayed reaction, having now just heard about the merger or, for those who did find out at the time, were given additional stressful information to deal with on top of final exams. Moreover, the fact that this information was made available the week before the majority of students went home for holiday break, gave yet another reason for students to be suspicious. Most students were not on campus during that time and thus were not given the opportunity to discuss the matter. A more timely and publicized forum with students would have proven to be more successful in addressing students concerns and notifying us properly. (Banks, 2001, p. 5) RQ10: Was there any involvement on behalf of faculty, students, staff, alumni, etc., pre-combination? If so, in what context? Millett (1976) argued that presidents and trustees should plan mergers with faculty, staff, student, and alumni acknowledgement and recognition. Participation in such planning, at least by listening to constituents and stakeholders, may break down the barriers to acceptance of the merger and pave the way for future buy-in (Millett, 1976). After talking with interviewees, the researcher noted that there seemed to be no involvement by the university community before the combination was announced. The former CSPP/AIU, president explained, No, because the business side needed to be tested first. There is no point in bothering people and making them stressed or worried unless we really know what is going to happen. The only people who were involved

344

pre-combination were the boards (including HRS), the presidents, some senior administrators, and the legal counsels. One USIU student stated, [H]ow the negotiations and notifications of the merger were dealt with are highly questionable. At no time during these discussions were the students of USIU made aware of any such things taking place. In turn, fellow students and I have been left dumbfounded as to why these discussions that could prove detrimental to our future were not communicated or consulted with the student body. This exclusion of students in such an important matter has left many feeling distrustful of administration. (Banks, 2001, p. 5) The fact that neither institution chose to involve university constituencies such as faculty, students, staff, and alumni in the process may have contributed to the resistance these groups had in accepting and embracing the merger. In other words, because they were not part of the process, and therefore felt that they did not factor into the decision making, they did not automatically agree to the idea of a merger; in fact, many were opposed to it. It was perceived by many university constituents that any decision making that was done on behalf of the institution was carried out behind closed doors, without their consultation or solicitation. It appears that the presidents and top administrations did not want to worry people about such decisions until they were made official. What they failed to realize, however, is that internal constituencies such as faculty, students, staff, and alumni want to know what is happening, whether or not the decision is implemented, and want to be part of that process. In the end, it is much more effective in terms of decision making and implementation, to bring constituents into the process. Not doing so undermines the intention of shared governance in colleges and universities. As one former USIU student stated, Empowerment and communication are the most critical factors to gaining the support and commitment of the groups involved in the change (Weissenbecker, 1994, p. 4).

345

RQ11: What was the legal structure of the merger/acquisition (i.e., consolidation, dissolution, etc.)? The transaction was structured as a transfer to CSPP of USIUs assets and enumerated liabilities, in which CSPP acquired the assets of USIU (e.g., its students, faculty, staff, programs, equipment) and some of the liabilities such as fixed operational costs (e.g., utilities, maintenance), as well as variable costs such as staff and faculty salaries for the San Diego and Mexico City campuses and the Orange County graduate center. There was no monetary consideration for this part of the transaction. While the transaction is often referred to as a merger, it was, in fact, a sale of assets (Board of Trustees Development Binder, 2007-08). In terms of corporate structures, the deal was an asset acquisition with an assumption of specified and enumerated liabilities. In other words, after all of USIUs assets were disclosed during the due diligence process, the CSPP Corporation determined which of those assets it would acquire and which of USIUs liabilities, which were considerable, it would assume as part of the ongoing operation. In good faith, however, CSPP did end up assuming all the liabilities of USIU including paying off USIUs remaining debt so that the new university could move forward with a clean slate. In a merger situation, you step into the shoes and take everythinggood, bad, or indifferent. CSPP chose not to do that. An asset purchase as opposed to a merger involves a much more in-depth due diligence with everything accounted for. Troubled corporations usually never do mergers and almost always do asset acquisitions. Legally, CSPP could pick and choose which assets and liabilities to it wished to assume, but later, in good faith, CSPP decided that it was best to move forward and assume all the liabilities of USIU, including long-term debt and promissory notes. So CSPP assumed and paid off all of USIUs debt and obligations. (USIU/Alliant General Counsel, 2009)

346

The real estate deal was a separate transaction, in which CSPP purchased 56 acres of the largest 103-acre parcel of land, which included the core campus buildings and the largest dormitory complex (Gamma), for $7.5 million, with a no-interest loan of 5 years from HRS Corporation, the member corporation on the USIU board, which owned the two parcels of the total 160-acre campus land that USIU leased from HRS. In addition, CSPP agreed to lease the remaining 47 acres, which contained the Alpha and Beta dormitories as well as six tennis courts and two parking lots, from HRS for three years, with an annual payment of $120,000 until June 30, 2004, to ensure ongoing use of the Alpha and Beta dormitory complexes. All needed approvals of consent to the combination were obtained prior to the closing of the transactions, including, but not limited to: California Attorney General, WASC, and the Federal and State Departments of Education. Neither corporation, CSPP nor USIU, was dissolved or consolidated. Rather, the CSPP Corporation (which was doing business as Alliant University) changed its name to Alliant International University and invited three interested board members of the USIU Corporation to join the new board; however, one of the USIU board members refused the invitation (former USIU President, 2009). Creation of a New Corporation and the Paper Merger Due to the corporate structure of CSPP, it was difficult to modify the articles of incorporation to change the name from CSPP to Alliant University and, subsequently, to Alliant International University, as such change required approval of two-thirds of the members. In addition, the university found it challenging to broaden the corporate purposes to accurately reflect the new, broad range of academic programs that it offered.

347

Unlike almost all other universities [legal corporate structures], CSPP [was] known as a membership corporation, [which, in CSPPs case, is comprised of both faculty and student members on the Board of Trustees]. This [legal structure] makes the ability to change difficult because it requires a large amount of votes from its members (including students and faculty) in order to pass [resolutions to make changes]. The purpose of CSPPs [founding] was to educate [and train] psychologists [which was stated in its founding charter of incorporation]. (Fordyce, 2002a, p. 1) Thus, to change the corporate entitys name to Alliant University and, subsequently, Alliant International University (AIU), the purpose of the corporation had to be changed. At its November 2001 board meeting, the new university board of trustees authorized the creation of a new California non-profit, public benefit corporation, Alliant International University, that provided a broad range of academic programs. CSPP, doing business as Alliant University, would merge with the new Alliant International University, and the name CSPP would no longer be used. While the merger first required the approval of the CSPP members, which included core faculty, degree-seeking students, and public trustees, the transaction required a simple majority of those voting. A vote on the merger was accomplished in the spring of 2002 through a vote via written ballot mailed to members. Members were given a certain amount of time to submit their ballots, and the measure was passed. Notice of the paper merger transaction was given to the Attorney General and to the Department of Education. The merger was finalized with the Secretary of State on September 16, 2003. RQ12: Which was the larger institution, CSPP/Alliant University or USIU? In most M&As, there is usually a dominant partner, which typically is the larger institution. However, in this case, both institutions were similarly sized. Even though USIU had more students worldwide, due to the 2,200 students on the Kenya campus

348

(USIU/Alliant General Counsel, 2009), they had nearly the same number of domestic students as CSPP. However, CSPP had approximately $10 million more revenue than USIU because the majority of CSPPs programs are expensive doctoral programs, and CSPP students, on average, pay more for tuition than do USIU students. According to one interviewee: CSPP did pretty well with this model and were able to have reserves, but it was not a tightly managed operation. USIU, on the other hand, made operating on a shoestring an art. We knew how to run as good a quality operation that we could possibly have with very scarce resources. To those of us at USIU, CSPP spent wildly compared to the constraints we were used to. For example, CSPP had lots of all-campus faculty retreats and meetings and because of the distance between CSPPs campuses, many travel expenses were incurred as a regular cost of doing business. (Former USIU/AIU Dean, 2009) RQ13: Was there any formal recognition for the ending of either of the previous institutions? According to Eastman and Lang (2001), members of an organization that is disappearing must recognize and come to terms with the passing of the old order before they can identify with and fully participate in the new establishment (p. 230). When asked this question, one interviewee said, No, and I think that was part of the problem. Neither CSPP/Alliant University nor USIU viewed or communicated the merger/acquisition as an ending, but rather as a new beginning for a stronger and more viable higher education institution. In the months prior to the combination, CSPP had been in the process of changing its identity, signified with a new name, Alliant University, from a single-focus professional school of psychology to a more comprehensive institution with new programs outside of Clinical Psychology, as a means to diversify its portfolio of offerings. Although some who had been part of the

349

beginnings of CSPP, such as founding faculty, may not have embraced this new institutional identity, there was no recognized ending of the original CSPP in this transformation, and the CSPP name was kept as its own school within the larger university context when changing to Alliant University, and later, after the combination with USIU, to Alliant International University (AIU). California Western University, (which was located on what is today the campus of Point Loma Nazarene University (PLNU)) experienced a similar situation when its name was changed to United States International University (USIU) by Founding President William Rust after its new campus was opened in Scripps Ranch. There was a transition period when the Point Loma campus was referred to as Cal Western-USIU until that campus was sold to what is now PLNU in 1973, 21 years after Cal Western was founded. Changing Cal Westerns name to USIU and then later selling the pristine Point Loma campus upset many students, alumni, faculty, and administrators, who had strong ties to Cal Western and did not appreciate President Rusts executive decision to do away with the Cal Western name, identity, and campus. One former Cal Western student explained: The students felt that the school had been sold out from under them, that the University had misrepresented what was occurring, that adequate time was not given to students to be able to answer to other universities, and that the Elliott Campus of USIU [in Scripps Ranch] could not possibly hold a candle to the beauty, serenity, and atmosphere of the Cal Western on Point Loma. The day that the University announced that the Cal Western campus was being sold was the day that USIU began to die. The last year of Cal Western was 1973 and it was tragic to leave. Although Elliott was nice enough it was never my school. (Thorn, 2004, p. 97-100)

350

After subsequent USIU presidents attempts to reengage the Cal Western alumni/brand proved only marginally successful, it appeared that Cal Western alumni felt alienated by the decision to eliminate the Cal Western name, did not identify with the institutions new name USIU, and, in turn, severed the ties with the University (Hays, 2009). Those who have worked in university fundraising, institutional development/ advancement, and/or alumni relations know that engaging alumni is a difficult endeavor and that many people, both internal and external to the university, feel indifferent toward the institution. This difficulty becomes even more pronounced in a merger/acquisition situation, where the institution that alumni knew is no longer in existence; consequently, the desire to become involved diminishes even further. This previous experience of changing university names and identities motivated USIU administrators to inform and engage USIU alumni and constituencies as much as possible from the beginning. Although the combination of CSPP with Alliant University and, subsequently, AIU, was not presented as an ending, but instead as a continuation to become something bigger and better, this change to become a new university did not interest and excite those who strongly identified with the former institution. Indeed, these kinds of groups and individuals tend to remain uncertain and skeptical about such change, in which the new institution may never be able to live up to their expectations. Further, when these changes are accompanied by negative outcomes (as was the case when AIU incurred a large deficit and was placed on Show Cause status), the negative attitudes toward the new institution become even more amplified and reinforce opponents resistance to the changes that take place.

351

Nevertheless, there are always those who will be displeased by change. Attempts were made by both CSPP and USIU (although some would argue that the attempts were minimal) to inform and engage alumni and university constituencies and generate an excitement about the new institution. However, some people believe that more attention should have gone into accommodating and helping those people who had been a part of these legacy institutions to grieve and come to terms with the change. Acknowledging that the institutions that people knew and loved would become obsolete could give people a sense of closure so that they would be able to move on to the new universitys future and create a new institutional legacy and identity. Hindsight In hindsight, it is difficult to say what should have, would have, and could have prevented many of the integration difficulties that resulted from the lack of formally and properly recognizing and acknowledging the legacy institutions and peoples attachments to them. This may have helped those who had already built such strong attachments and commitments to the former institutions move on to a new institutional beginning. At the same time, however, having a public grieving process for all members of the institution, the newest members, i.e., as incoming students who did not have attachments to the legacy institutions, would have seen this as confusing, unproductive, and possibly even negative. This could have serious consequences for the institutions attempt to make such a major change and to create enthusiasm for the new change. In addition, during the merger, there was much excitement and, as one interviewee stated, a genuine desire to get married taking place. Therefore, the grieving process may have further crushed peoples hope and optimism for the change,

352

particularly since there was no way to predict the devastating outcomes of the mismanagement of the merger that was yet to come. In turn, the lesson on what an institution could and should do in this type of situation depends on the context. Some of the literature on higher education M&As recommends that institutions facilitate the passing of the old order (ONeil & Barnett, 1980, p. 80) by having some type of formal recognition of the change and some expression of respect for that which is ending. How this is done depends on the particular circumstances of the merger, but some symbolic recognition of the change is common, as is some opportunity for those affected to mourn their loss (Eastman & Lang, 2001, p. 230). Perhaps one way to manage these kinds of concerns would be to address the concerns of various constituencies differently. For example, for those who have a history with the legacy institutions, group forums and even counseling could help provide muchneeded support and assistance to institutional members who are coping with change. This could be done in addition to the ongoing activities of engaging constituencies and promoting the synergies and benefits that will be gained from a merger. For anyone, whether new to or a long-time employee of the organization, to accept and come to terms with a major institutional change such as a merger or acquisition, they need to know and understand the reason for it. During-merger/Acquisition Strategic Planning and Management RQ14: How was the merger/acquisition communicated internally and externally?

353

A major component of the strategic planning process in M&As is communicating the combination to various stakeholder groups and constituencies, both internal and external. An effective strategic communications plan is crucial to the merger process and can reduce internal and external resistance to help ensure a successful merger. The key is to understand what type of communication is needed, to whom, and when (McLaughlin, 1996). Preparing the groundwork for merger is an important step, in which it is wise to begin the groundwork early, so that once negotiations are made public, they are perceived as appropriate and legitimate and a positive foundation for eventual integration. (Eastman & Lang, 2001, p. 222) For both partners, this involves articulating what is hoped to be gained through merger and then cultivating support for it. However, Eastman and Lang (2001) stressed that the benefits must not be exaggerated. Unrealistic expectations in areas such as funding, job security, or the extent of change should not be encouraged (Eastman & Lang, 2001). Otherwise, feelings of frustration and betrayal will develop when a different reality begins to unfold (Harman, 2002). After talking with interviewees, the researcher noted that the communication efforts to publicly announce the institutional combination appeared to be minimal. At the time of the combination, neither USIU nor CSPP/Alliant University had internal communications personnel or substantial resources to dedicate to this endeavor. Externally, there had been a few press releases generated in San Diego and San Francisco with the help of a local public relations firm, but, according to the former CSPP/Alliant University, then AIU, president, It was not our highest priority and we didnt have the

354

budget for a large campaign. Said a former USIU department chair, My sense is that this communication plan did not live up to its original expectations. The former AIU president said that communicating the merger/acquisition as a transformational change was not a priority in part because they did not want to create stress and anxiety associated with large-scale change for the people of CSPP and USIU. Instead, the change was expressed as a succession of the institutions (and their separate, distinctive identities) achieved through an institutional combination to create a sense of continuation rather than disruption for institutional members, especially for those not located on the San Diego campus who would, in the minds of administration, just continue with business as they had before the merger/acquisition. However, this decision to make slow, incremental change (in which there was a plan to allow two years to transition) runs contrary to what is written in the M&A literature regarding implementing change in which it is usually recommended to implement major change at the beginning of the merger. The best thing a[n] [organization] can do is to move as rapidly as possible to complete all integration tasks, thereby reducing the period of dislocation through which the acquirer will undoubtedly suffer (Bragg, 2009, p. 182). The merger/acquisition was termed a combination by administration to convey a merging of equals as opposed to a takeover situation. However, this plan appeared to backfire, as the term combination seemed ambiguous, and many became suspicious that this was, indeed, a takeover. Reader described some of the fear and suspicion regarding the nature of the transaction: I know they say that the coming together of Alliant and USIU is a merger/combination, but I just dont buy that. Look at the facts: THEY are buying 60 or so acres of our campus. We are getting THEIR president. The

355

USIU President said that legally this is an acquisition, but only on paper. Sorry to burst your bubble, but what is usually legal on paper tends to influence the reality of the outcome of who is really in charge. I have been trying to get more information on what is actually going to take place, but no one seems to want to bother with me. When I suggested that we form a student group to help with the transition, I was told to talk to [the new AIU President]. Her response was: I am not yet your president so you will need to work with [the USIU President]. So I contacted [the USIU President] who said he is unable to work with a student team because he will be leaving before the changes are made. And what about all of these changes that no one seems to have a clue about? Do they have a plan in place that they are not sharing with us? I cant help but feel paranoid. After all, the negotiations between the two schools have been going on in private. And what timing! I found out the night of my first final, right before we left for a six-week winter break. Was that planned so we wouldnt be around to react? I cant help but wonder what will happen to USIU. I believe that Alliant/CSPP will swallow up the people in USIUs Psychology programs. They are bringing their whole San Diego campus here. Where do they plan to fit all those people? Are they going to magically build classrooms overnight? Where will we park? How will our instructors faire? Will we lose the best instructors in favor of cheaper, less qualified adjunct faculty? What about the class sizes in the Psychology programs? Are we going to be like SDSU and have 100 people in a class? Are we going to change to a semester system? Will they even ask us if we care? Why dont they tell us? Why dont they ask us what we think? (Reader, 2001a, p. 6) Another USIU student said, I feel that the students were not given enough information about the merger/ combination with Alliant. (Johnson, as cited in Reaves, 2001a, p. 3) Reader also described a meeting that took place between the former USIU and Alliant University student government/senate councils: We each spoke about what issues concerned us regarding the merger. [Alliant/CSPP] students seem to be in slightly better contact with their staff about the merger [than USIU students], but not by much. For the most part, their questions and concerns mirrored ours about the changes that will be happening. We both seem to be having so much trouble working with the people who will be in charge. It is a shame that those at the top do not feel it is important to include students in decisions that affect us (students), especially since both are tuitiondriven schools. In essence, we (students) are paying them to make decisions that

356

will affect us and they are not including us in this process. This is criminal. I also sensed this frustration from the Alliant/CSPP side in their student senate regarding their students being left out of the [decision-making] process. That is why I think it is important for us to make our presence known on each campus, so that we will no longer not be factored into decisions regarding our future. Please join us in becoming one unified voice. (Reader, 2001b, p. 6) The combination was also communicated, as most M&As are, with much optimism and confidence, noting all the positive synergies and benefits to be gained from combining forces. As one CSPP faculty member stated: Theres no question that the tone of the communications were overly optimistic. For example, they showed everyone a new campus master plan for the San Diego Scripps Ranch campus and said that a new building was going to be constructed within two years of the merger. Well, two years has since come and gone so obviously that never happened. (CSPP Professor, 2009) The AIU president said that this new building will hold offices and classrooms, as well as clinic space (AIU President, 2001). The AIU president also said in an interview: Beyond that, we plan to improve a number of buildings throughout campus and develop a long-range plan for replacing all of the temporary buildings. So you should see an improvement of the condition of the whole campus over the coming years. (As cited in Reader, 2001c, p. 1) Most of these plans did not materialize. The AIU president also said that one of [her] highest priorities is to maintain clear communication between students and administrationin both directions (as cited in Reader, 2001c, p. 2). This priority also was optimistic, as it turned out to be one of the major faults of administration that WASC placed AIU on Show Cause status. After such promises were not realized, students and other members of the university became suspicious that they were being misled, as the literature confirms will happen if unrealistic promises are made (Harman, 2002). One former USIU, then AIU, student said:

357

Alliant promised changes when they took over. Since then Ive seen one new set of stairs constructed and a few new faculty offices. Other than that there have been no new paved parking lots, no new building, and very little renovation. (Reader, 2001d, p. 7) Another student spoke of the promised campus improvements, saying, The school and its governing body need to make and follow a budget that will improve and build facilities rather than make promises and not take any action (Sanghraia, as cited in Lewis, 2003, p. 4). In terms of the form of internal communication used to inform USIU university constituencies, various town hall meetings took place, and letters and emails were sent to students, faculty, staff, alumni, and friends of the university. In addition, the USIU website was updated with information on the change. According to one USIU staff member, The USIU President did a good job of keeping folks informed through email communications as well as by having meetings. The USIU faculty members were told about the changes to expect from the combination by the deans. According to a former USIU (then AIU) dean, We had to convince the USIU faculty that losing their tenure was a good thing, which was not easy, but we succeeded. The reason we succeeded is based on the same reason the USIU Board decided to move forward with the deal. This was really our only option if we wanted to keep our doors open. So the faculty members agreed to be supportive of the change and were probably happy that they were going to have jobs. They all got 3-year contracts as part of the deal. They were all kept. No one lost their job, and they had assurances that they were going to have a job at least for three years. All of us genuinely believed that we (the University) were going to grow into a huge success and that we would be able to maintain our USIU identity. (Former USIU/AIU Dean, 2009) CSPP faculty members were officially informed of the combination with USIU by the CSPP/Alliant University president at an all-faculty meeting composed of faculty from all the CSPP/Alliant University campuses. Originally, the CSPP/Alliant University

358

president had not planned to inform people about the deal at that meeting because it was still not yet official, but, The timing of having everyone together warranted me telling them what was happening (former CSPP/AIU President, 2009). Upon hearing the news, many CSPP faculty members were upset by the lack of solicitation of feedback or input from faculty regarding the decision to combine; for many, this was the first time they heard about the decision, so it came as quite a shock. According to one interviewee, The combination was communicated badly on the CSPP side. It started out as a rumor and then was later confirmed at an all-faculty retreat/meeting at the Alameda campus. The retreat was a two-day meeting that included break-out sessions to create several ad hoc committees. The main purpose of this meeting was to bring together all the faculty and staff from the various campuses to inform people of the combination, which was going to occur in San Diego. According to one interviewee, The only thing that immediately changed for the other campuses was new letterhead. During the meeting, many questions were asked regarding what this combination meant; what it was going to entail; and what the consequences were going to be now that everyone was going to be employed by a new entity. For many people trying to understand the change, the term combination was ambiguous and created difficulties during the implementation. RQ15: How were alumni notified about the merger/acquisition? Alumni from CSPP and USIU were notified through mailings, newsletters, and ongoing alumni receptions and reunions, although just as what occurred with the overall communication efforts, the extent to which alumni were informed and engaged is

359

questionable. Many believe that alumni, as a university constituency, were not addressed or engaged adequately. RQ16: What form of transition/integration planning was formulated for the implementation of the merger/acquisition? Transition and integration planning are also major components of strategic planning and management in M&As. Bragg (2009) stated that the integration planning process: should begin with an implementation charter that sets forth the statement of overall objectives, synergy targets, and the resources available to [a transition] team. The team then uses this information to create an integration plan that itemizes the tasks to be completed in achieving the objectives noted in the charter, as well as measurement systems to ensure that targets have been achieved. (p. 182) From the time after the Definitive Agreement was signed until the deal was closed, There was significant work done on transitional planning for the implementation on the San Diego campus, not even fully knowing if the transaction would close, because the university had to get WASC approval (former USIU/Alliant General Counsel, 2009). Transition teams were organized for the physical merger in San Diego, in which administration, staff, faculty, and student representatives (one undergraduate and one graduate student) from CSPP-San Diego and USIU worked together on the physical and programmatic transition and integration, led by an appointed chief of staff to assist the AIU president with this endeavor. Campus Transition Team (2002) described the formation of this team: Recognizing the unique and often times sensitive issues involved with combining the students, staff, and faculty of the San Diego campuses of CSPP/AU and USIU, the (AIU) President and her cabinet determined that the administrative/ management structure of the Scripps Ranch campus needed to differ initially from

360

that of the other CSPP/AU campuses during the formative first years of the combination of the two institutions. The management traditions of the two institutions differed. CSPP/AU San Diego (as well as the other CSPP/AU campuses) was managed on a day-to-day basis by a Director of Campus and Student Services (DCSS) and program directors were in charge of administering the academic programs on each campus (with system wide deans scattered throughout the system of campuses). USIU, on the other hand, was run on a day-to-day basis by an on-campus president and his administrative team. In a manner that somewhat combines the two administrative structures, the new (AIU) President strives to be on the San Diego (Scripps Ranch) campus two to three days per week during which she attends on- and off-campus functions, including meetings with faculty, staff, students, and administrative personnel. She has appointed the Universitys in-house attorney to act as her Chief of Staff to assist in the administration of the campus. Similar to the DCSS, the Chief of Staff is responsible for the day-to-day coordination of services on the campus. The Chief of Staff is also empowered to act on behalf of the President in her absence. Also key to the day to day management of the campus is the daily presence and involvement of two system wide vice presidents. (p. 2) In October, the chief of staff helped to establish the Campus Transition Team, consisting of key staff and faculty representatives to assist in the development of an integrated academic community on the San Diego campus. The main purpose of the transition team was to receive input from all members of the AIU San Diego community regarding academic or administrative issues of concern pertaining to the combination of the two institutions and its day-to-day operations. The goal of the team was to provide timely, inclusive and proactive resolutions to the issues of concern. In this manner, the team acted as a quasi-administrative council similar to that found on the other CSPP/AU campuses. In January and February 2002, an undergraduate and a graduate student were added to the transition team to ensure that student concerns were being adequately addressed.

361

The team is coordinated by a steering committee and meets weekly. The formation of the Transition Team was announced to the campus on November 5th via campus email which encouraged the campus community to address their concerns to the team members. In January, the Team commenced the production and dissemination of Transitions, a periodic publication to serve to communicate to the campus the current issues being addressed by the Team while providing a vehicle for communicating other matters of interest to the campus. (Campus Transition Team, 2002, pp. 1-2) In other words, the transition and integration efforts were limited to faculty, staff, administration, and two student representatives located in San Diego, as that was where the physical merger took place. Faculty and staff from the other campuses were not involved in this process, as top administration did not feel that having the other campuses involved was necessary for the transition and integration. The former CSPP/AIU president stated: We went through an intense planning process with retreats and regular meetings as well as a process of creating a new vision/mission that was built on the CSPP Boards Strategic Plan to develop a new vision for the future to combine the best of the traditions and missions of both USIU and CSPP/Alliant University. (CSPP/AIU President, 2009) A USIU dean, who was also the interim VP for Finance/CFO for USIU after the USIU CFO retired during the transition, said that there was much transition planning in terms of academic affairs, but very little on the financial side, other than the due diligence. Areas and functions that were brought together and integrated included academic programs, policies, facilities, personnel, and student services, which were significantly different from each other. As a traditional university with both undergraduate and graduate programs, USIU had a residential campus with student life staff and services that CSPP/Alliant did not have, such as counseling, career services, health services, a student activities office, and an athletic department, in addition to its academic services.

362

CSPPs services offered were basically only those coupled with its academic programs, such as registration, academic advising, financial aid, a student business services office for paying tuition and fees, and a professional training office to help place students in practicums and internships. A Student Affairs team was created to combine the two institutions campus and student service staffs and: to create an effective climate for learning and academic success. This include[d] improve[ing] the environment of the residence halls and building available academic resources outside the classroom [such as] tutoring, mentoring, and providing support for students who are having academic challenges. Part of this effort include[d] helping at-risk undergraduate students. [T]his was done by the creation of a plan based [on] developing an integrated student affairs staff, bringing together the USIU and CSPP personnel and reviving several student services that had gone into remission over the previous years [as well as working] to help students understand and cope with the change process. (Saran, 2002b, p. 2). Academically, the education and psychology programs of USIU and CSPP were combined, and students who studied psychology at USIU were given the option to continue and complete either the USIU program or apply to CSPPs APA-approved program: Early on it became clear that USIUs Psy.D program was going to end so we incorporated several of USIUs Psychology students into CSPPs Psy.D. program. Our main goal was to have the least amount of intrusion as possible on students, who were sort of the innocent bystanders. So we had to incorporate the old students from USIU without them getting hurt in the process. We let those students finish under that program from USIU for a certain period of time. After that they had to comply with CSPPs requirements. The only Psychology program that both USIU and CSPP had was the Psy.D. program so those programs had to be merged. USIU did not have a Ph.D. program, but they did have a Marriage and Family Therapy (MFT) program which CSPP did not have. The main difference is that the clinical programs (Ph.D. and Psy.D.) are doctoral programs whereas the MFT Program has both masters and doctoral levels. The MFT Program, inherited from USIU, is the only program to expand to the other campuses. (CSPP Faculty Member and Program Director, 2009)

363

Deans from both institutions as well as the program directors from CSPP and department chairs from USIU met frequently in the months leading up to the implementation to integrate academic programs and policies before the deal closed on July 1. One dean from USIU said he thought this process worked very well. I think the academic affairs went smoothly. Some of us now could probably even serve as consultants based on this experience. We did very good work and it was a good team of people. I think, for the most part, everyone got along and there was a remarkable amount of trust on both sides and a general willingness to get married. There were two different sets of policies, procedures, systems; everything was different. And suddenly we needed to combine them, both academic affairs and the financial business offices. We got more done on the academic affairs side. (Former USIU/AIU Dean and Interim CFO, 2009) A USIU Department Chair stated: There were meetings in San Diego which brought together all the system wide program directors from CSPP and the department chairs from USIU. We had day-long meetings where we would address different issues. For instance, one of the issues addressed was how to combine the two different academic department systems since USIU had the department chair model and CSPP used the program director model. So, in my case, I was Chair of the Department of Global Liberal Studies (which was later discontinued) which had several different programs in several different disciplines. Program Directors (PDs), on the other hand, are only in charge of one specific program, like the Clinical Psy.D, for example. At USIU, the Psychology Department Chair was in charge of all the programs in psychology, including the undergraduate program. We ended up doing away with the department chair model and adopting CSPPs program director model, which is only used for certain programs. (USIU Department Chair, 2009) In summary, transition and integration planning was done at the top administrative, system-wide level in terms of due diligence and legal aspects that involved the merger as well as integrating CSPPs board-initiated strategic plan and mission with USIUs mission to create a combined university mission, vision, and goals. The aspects of transition and integration planning for the physical merger of the USIU and CSPP/Alliant University-San Diego campuses involved faculty, administration, staff,

364

and student representatives who were in charge of the academic transition, integration, and day-to-day operations. After talking with interviewees who were involved in the academic planning and affairs, the researcher noted that it appears that this process worked out quite well and that many were and are satisfied with the work done in this area. The former CSPP/AIU President also was very pleased with how well this process worked. One thing I worried about was combining and integrating the academic programs, but fortunately this was one of the things that worked out best and I have the faculty to thank for that. This is their bread and butter and they did an excellent job in this endeavor. (Former CSPP/AIU President, 2009) RQ17: Was there a transition/integration team or leader/manager put in place? As mentioned previously, a transition team was put in place to organize and implement the physical merger in San Diego to help the CSPP-San Diego students and faculty move and consolidate on the USIU-San Diego Scripps Ranch campus and address and communicate issues as they developed. According to the chief of staff in charge of the transition team: I think we had a really good local transition team, which included folks from USIUs campus and CSPP-San Diegos campus. I thought that this worked out really well. (Chief of Staff for the transition, 2009) Although transition teams were set up for the physical merger/consolidation on the San Diego Scripps Ranch campus, this appears to be the only transition/integration team effort that took place for the combination, other than the activities associated with academic affairs policies and planning and creating a combined mission and vision aligned with CSPP/Alliant Universitys Strategic Plan. In other words, there was no system-wide transition/integration team or leader/manager who was specifically charged

365

with overseeing the transition/integration process. If such a person was put in place, this was not an officially held title or position, as none of the persons interviewed mentioned any such individual, and there was nothing written in the planning documents that referenced such a system-wide person(s) or group(s). RQ18: How was this transition implemented and managed? Who decided on this process? Eastman and Lang (2001) stated that, during the transition period, the emphasis shifts from those empowered to make and approve a deal on behalf of the institution to those with expertise and legitimacy needed to make plans for the merged institution, those with the authority to approve plans, and those who must attempt to manage the transition. (p. 171). One interviewee described the transition as being top-down, from the President. Initially, everything came from the top, as this was where the combination was initiated. Then after we went public and things started to broaden, we got other administrators involved like the VPs for Student Affairs, HR Directors, etc. On the academic side, there was an academic planning group put together with Deans, Department Chairs, Program Directors, and some of the Psychology faculty from both sides of the merger. The more this process began unfolding, the more I withdrew from it in terms of my day-to-day involvement since my role as USIU President ended after the deal closed. My role basically became that of dealing with crises and conflicts that arose over issues with the name, rumor control, and those sorts of aspects. My interest at that point was to try and do everything possible to make the process go as positively as it could, without getting involved in what was going to happen to courses and what was going to happen to staff benefits and that sort of thing. I stayed until about the end of June 2001. (Hays, 2009) According to another interviewee: There were two sets of transitions: (1) consolidating the physical merger on the San Diego Scripps Ranch Campus; and (2) reorganizing the system wide structures in terms of academic programs, policies, etc. The CSPP/Alliant University President held a 2-day planning session at the Alameda Campus in San Francisco. Everyone was required to read the book Joining Forces as our

366

guidepost for our organizational cultural understanding. (USIU/Alliant General Counsel, 2009) As mentioned previously, it does not appear that a formal integration team or leader was assigned the responsibilities of leading and managing the transition/integration process for the entire university and all of its campuses. In fact, one interviewee stated, There was a lot of confusion over who was taking the lead. Some USIU students became quite frustrated that there appeared to be no go-to person in charge of the integration in the beginning of the transition to whom they could address their questions and concerns. Reader (2001d) stated, I first contacted our former USIU President and asked him to involve students from both universities in the planning process. I told him I thought this would allay student fears and help the student bodies become united and empowered if we had an active role in the merger. He declined to get involved, saying, the decisions and planning mechanisms are being made under [the new AIU Presidents] direction. So I sent an email to [the new AIU President] and her response was, it would seem to be important for USIU students to be involved. Further, she stated it was awkward for her to work directly with USIU students without administrators involved. Well get back to you as soon as this is sorted out a bit, she said. And that was the last I heard from her. (p. 7) This lack of putting students needs first from the beginning and involving them early in the transition process created an us versus them mentality among students in how they viewed the administration and how they perceived administrations actions (and inactions) in administrations treatment and views on the importance of involving students in the change process. This also led some students, such as Reader (2001), to publicly vent their negative sentiments and frustrations, thus adding fuel to the fire for people with animosity, uncertainty, and negative attitudes toward administration, especially those who tend to view authority structures, such as administration or government, negatively.

367

This negative perception of top administration held by some students, both undergraduate and graduate, at all institutions of higher education is further amplified when there is a legitimate cause for concern among students to feel that they are being undermined by the authority to whom they are adhering and to whom they pay their tuition. This phenomenon indeed occurred in this case, when students were given the run around by administrators when they sought to become involved in helping in the transition process. Furthermore, this also made top administration seem disorganized with regard to the merger integration, as it appeared that there really was no one in charge of it. This issue was later addressed by the creation of a local transition team, led by a chief of staff (located on that campus) who was appointed to act on the presidents behalf, as she could not be on the San Diego Scripps Ranch campus on a full-time basis. This team served as an ad hoc committee to address issues and concerns as they arose as well as communicate what was going on with the transition to the university community via email. This team may have been successful on a local level, but the university also needed to create a transition/implementation team at the system-wide level, as the combination was, in fact, a significant change for the entire university system, even though it was physically occurring on only one campus. Further, it was believed that the transition team was created much later than it should have to really prepare for a smooth transition. Additionally, those who were involved in managing the transition not only had to dedicate much time and energy to this endeavor, but also had to continue the work of their full-time job as faculty, staff, administrators, and students. Most organizations that implement successful mergers are

368

those that create a full-time integration team, including an integration leader who is assigned responsibility of leading and managing the integration. In this case, those who were charged with the transition already had full-time jobs as faculty, staff, administrators, (and students). Thus, each took on an additional full-time job by taking on this essential responsibility of managing the transition/integration. Cultural Integration Efforts Although there appears to have been no formal system wide integration leader position created for the combination, a new provost was assigned to lead the transition process on the academic side and blend the two institutions cultures. A former USIU department chair stated: The Provost, who was brand new to the University, had to deal with faculty from both sides of the merger. This is a difficult task for anyone to take ondealing with disgruntled facultynever mind dealing with a faculty who were disgruntled over blending cultures that she (the Provost) was unfamiliar with. In an effort to merge the institutional cultures, the provost did some team-building exercises with staff and faculty. Reflecting on this, one interviewee said: I remember doing one activity where we all stood in a circle and held hands, and then passed around a rock representing our new institutional identity. So that was an attempt to mesh and combine the two cultural entities. Although I understood the importance of and reasons behind it and appreciated the effort that was made, I didnt think this activity really addressed what was at the core of our culture clash: our differences, while also, at the same time, making our similarities known to each other so we could build commonality and unity. I thought this was somewhat of a superficial attempt to merge the institutional cultures. (Former USIU Department Chair, 2009) The Provost mentioned that it was difficult at times to appease faculty, address their concerns and resistance, and try to blend the cultures. However, because the provost was new to the institution, she explained, it made her a better listener and problem solver,

369

as she was not partial to either of the former institutions. She felt that this helped her to understand the cultures of the various campuses. However, the provost saw many issues regarding cultural integration difficulties develop, including the complexity of each campuss having its own unique culture and identity. The provost, being in a systemwide role, thus spent much of her time and energy traveling to the various campuses to meet with faculty, students, and staff to discuss their concerns: As Provost, I spent a lot of time traveling to the campuses (just about every week) and learning about each campus unique culture. I had a number of meetings where representatives from each of the campuses were brought together so that they could have an opportunity to start to get to know each other and work together as well as share their concerns and input. (Former AIU Provost, 2009) In addition, Bragg (2009) stated that, Employees must be allowed to vent their frustrations, since the alternative is pentup anger that can result in employee departures or lack of support. Consequently, the integration team should immediately create several formal communication channels that are specifically for the use of anyone impacted by the integration project. (p. 199) Thus, efforts to be inclusive and listen to constituencys concerns and input is extremely important and necessary in M&A implementations. However, traveling to all the campuses to address faculty, staff, and student concerns was a time-consuming endeavor that added to the existing job and responsibilities of the provost position. Again, most organizations that manage M&As effectively are those that assign the responsibilities of M&A transition/integration to a full-time leader/manager, supported by a transition/integration team, to facilitate the transition/integration process. Then, once this process is complete, the persons responsible for the day-to-day operations can resume their original roles and

370

responsibilities. Consequently, after AIU was ordered to show cause by WASC, a university ombudsperson was hired, who would be responsible for addressing and dealing with student concerns and issues so that the provost would be able to concentrate solely on academic and faculty-related issues. Post-merger Impact of Merger RQ19: What was the general response and reaction of faculty, students, staff, and alumni to the combination? Different constituencies have different reactions when confronting a major change, such as a merger. These reactions differ according to how constituents feel the change will affect them personally. Although the way people react to change varies with each individual, there are some commonly held views by members of the same constituencies. For example, one concern that students as a constituency would have would be how the merger will affect their program and requirements to graduate. For faculty, among their concerns would be continued terms of employment. Employment and job security also are major concerns for most staff members, in addition to changes associated with job roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships. In addition to these different groups having their own personal concerns and reactions to change, many of these constituencies share the same concerns and have similar reactions with regard to confronting major change related to academics and academic/institutional philosophies and values; organizational structure, power, and politics; and institutional culture and identity. These concerns can often create an us versus them mentality between those in merging institutions, which further increases

371

these groups resistance to change, and which university administrators and leaders must address. A Note About the Research Methodology Determining the overall reactions of these various constituency groups in this case was based on the perceptions given by the interviewees, all of whom were very close to the activities regarding the merger, and, in many cases, played a major role in confronting and managing these reactions. Their perceptions, although restricted to their individual filters, nonetheless can still provide an insightful and accurate portrayal of the various reactions by different constituencies that took place upon hearing of the merger. At the same time, the groups views and perceptions are not meant to be taken as factual evidence, as perceptions are subjective and limited to personal individuality, and people who are members of different constituencies perceive things differently. Nonetheless, both are valid interpretations of events. Some interviewees who are members and leaders of a constituency group, such as the chair of the faculty senate or a student government representative, are usually able to speak relatively accurately on behalf of their constituency, such as CSPP faculty or USIU students, while other interviewees perceptions reflect more accurately their individually held, personal views. Additionally, in many cases, interviewees gave the same information (which was triangulated) and held the same views and perceptions, which they confirmed were widely held by many in the university community. The following section describes the reactions to the merger by different university constituencies, as portrayed by the interviewees.

372

As mentioned, the reactions of the different constituencies, including students, faculty, staff, and top administrators, differed according to how they perceived the merger and how the changes associated with it would affect them personally. Various reactions to the merger included: excitement and enthusiasm for the change; indifference to the change; uncertainty and suspicion about the change; resistance to change; opposition to change; hostility towards change; a lack of commitment and motivation to achieving successful change and implementation; a lack of taking responsibility and having accountability for achieving desired results/outcomes of the change and implementation; a perceived negativity for implementing the change when it impeded peoples desire to maintain the status quo and their individual autonomy, especially for those who were proud of and strongly identified with their former institutions and cultures (the way we do things), and were threatened by the imposed change. After the implementation was underway and negative events were becoming known, many members the university community started to publicly vent their feelings of frustration, anger, sadness, and betrayal. According to a CSPP/AIU administrator: The reactions to the merger ranged. And they changed. I would say it started out equal parts negative, neutral, and positive in all three groups (students, faculty, and staff). In its infancy, when the merger was more of a hypothetical than a reality, people were positive in all three of those groups. Once it got to be more real and especially when negative things started happening, then people started to get more negative and upset. USIU lost their name so inevitably they were upset about the name change. This name change led to a lot of drama. That is part of the culture that we didnt pay attention to. There were two kinds of upset. One kind came more from the staff regarding job security and job-related issues. The other kind of reaction expressed by CSPP faculty who had an opinion was: Why are we combining with them? And, Why should we want it? They are not at our same level of sophistication in psychology. And, They (USIU) had all these other things like undergraduate programs that we, as faculty, are not interested in. As it turned

373

out, however, there was a very good reason why we should want and be interested in it, which had to do with CSPPs diversification. CSPP had this idea of We are the ones with APA accreditation and we are the ones with the reputation and can attract students. This is us (CSPP) being our egotistical selves. So those were the reactions coming from the campus that we had to work through over the course of fall 2001. Eventually, we were able to get a general support for the combination. Aside from San Diego, this merger was not intended to affect any of the other campuses so those places, at that time, could really care less. At the same time faculty had to teach, students had to go to class, and staff/administration had to work so the day-to-day activities went on and life moved forward. The negativity would ebb as we got into a semester. It would be very high for the first three weeks. During the add/drop period there would be a lot of complaining and a lot of problems, which occurred because of the mismanagement of the merger. Things like registration and grades that usually cause some of those complaints and problems were escalated even more because of the heightened amount of tension and stress. (CSPP/Alliant Administrator, 2009) In terms of the reaction of students in the beginning, Brown (2001) reported, The biggest concern among students is how [the] combination [would] affect their day-to-day lives. Reaction from the staff and faculty has been relatively positive (p. 1). Excitement and Enthusiasm In the beginning, some people were excited and enthusiastic for the change. At that point, the future was unknown, and many promises were being made about becoming an academically and financially broader and stronger, viable institution with much potential for growth and success. A USIU/AIU dean stated: All in all I think the reaction to the merger was positive. We put a positive a spin on it and for the most part people were optimistic. We genuinely believed that the change was good and for the better. For USIU, this was a way for us to continue to stay in business and after we combined we would be a stronger and better university- with more money.

374

A USIU/AIU student remarked: I think the merger is a positive move on behalf of both former universities. I hope that they will soon try to make the campus more aesthetically pleasing. (Young, as cited in Lwin, 2002, p. 3) Another USIU student at the time said: Im excited about the merger. I think it will be an overall positive merger. (Diaz, as cited in Reaves, 2001a, p. 3). Another USIU student stated: I am excited about the merger. I think we will see major improvements around the university. I also think the university will have a higher enrollment rate. I believe that the merger will allow the university to have better recognition around the country. (Avila, as cited in Reaves, 2001a, p. 3) Some students from CSPP-San Diego also viewed the merger positively. One CSPP student reported: I like it here, people are friendly to us. Ive been helped whenever I need to go get information. Its nice that most of the staff here empathize with how confusing it can be to making an adjustment like this. (Palmer, as cited in Reaves, 2001a, p. 3) Another CSPP-San Diego student spoke of the USIU campus: I love my new campus. It is so nice to be surrounded by trees and rolling lawns. The diversity on this campus is great. I enjoy hearing all the different languages spoken as I walk around. I look forward to meeting more former USIU students and watching our two cultures eventually become one. (McManus, as cited in Reaves, 2001a, p. 3) Another CSPP-San Diego student said: For those of us coming from an office building its a refreshing change to be on a campus. [I]ts a beautiful campus. I look forward to the future when we have more space to accommodate everyone. I appreciate everyones efforts to share. (OShea, as cited in Reaves, 2001a, p. 3) Yet another CSPP-San Diego student remarked: The (Scripps Ranch) campus is larger. The undergrad program gives more opportunity for grad students to gain research subjects/participants. More 375

students mean a stronger university. However, some of the buildings need serious repair. (as cited in Reaves, 2001a, p. 3) Another CSPP student said that she was excited about the possibilities [of] having an undergraduate population [and what that] would mean to the new university. [She] liked the idea of joining with a larger university, particularly for multi-disciplinary opportunities (Alliant online survey, 2009). The CSPP/AIU president said in an interview: I am truly excited about all the opportunities that this combination provides. A great deal will become possible simply because the university will actually own its campus. As a result, it will be seen as a stronger institution in which the community and our alumni will want to invest. In time, that will translate into new programs, new buildings, and many additional opportunities that we cant even imagine at this time. (Reader, 2001c, p. 2) Acceptance and Understanding The former USIU president said that the reaction from the USIU faculty was of tremendous understanding (Hays, 2009). Of course, this wasnt what they would prefer to do, but they had confidence and trust in their leaders and that we werent going to sell them out. They knew that we had their best interests at heart and would protect them. (Hays, 2009) Uncertainty and Skepticism The unknown future often creates uncertainty, fear, and skepticism for proposed change. One USIU student at the time said: To me, I dont think they (CSPP) could bring anything more beneficial to USIU psychology programs than we already have. USIU has a well-developed psychology program and, in my opinion, is one of USIUs strongest programs. I applied to CSPP, but decided to go to USIU for this reason. (Walker, as cited in Reaves, 2001a, p. 3)

376

Another USIU student said: Although I respect the benefits that change can bring, I also fear what this merger may cause. I fear that USIUs acclaimed international atmosphere will be severely damaged or even wiped out. I hope this doesnt happen because that is the reason I chose to come to this school in the first place. (Stapleton, as cited in Reaves, 2001a, p. 3) A student staff writer for the USIU Envoy school newspaper said: Students have voiced many questions and concerns about the merger from class sizes, to the quarter/semester system, to our international campuses. (Banks, 2001, p. 5) Yet another USIU student said: Hopefully, not too much will change because this school is really fun. (Lewis, as cited in Reaves, 2001a, p. 3) An article in the USIU Envoy student newspaper said questions from students: ranged from uncertainty about moving from quarter to semester system; what would happen to the Kenya and Mexico City campuses; how the new university would go about managing and retaining the growth of the College of Business; and how the influx of 200-300 students would be dealt with in regards to space availability [on the Scripps Ranch campus]. (Pizano, 2001, p. 5) The former USIU President said that the alumni and students main apprehension was the name change. We had a very strong alumni association and the President of the Alumni board took action on December 7, 2000, where they wrote a letter expressing their support for the merger, but not for the name change (Hays, 2009). Hays reported that he received many individual responses from alumni and students. He said the tone of most of them was an understanding of why USIU was doing the merger, but the main concern was over the name change. Many people were proud of the name USIU (Hays, 2009).

377

Fear and Opposition According to a CSPP Program Director, CSPP experienced a dip in the enrollment after the merger. He reported that students were very afraid about what this meant for them and were afraid that CSPP might lose its accreditation (CSPP Faculty Member and Program Director, 2009). Disappointment and Loss of Institutional Identity Many people were disappointed by the idea of the merger, especially those from USIU, where there were feelings of sadness regarding the loss of the USIU name. It wasnt exactly greeted with enthusiasm. But I think that most people didnt really know how bad things were for USIU, financially. People were sad that it was happening (former USIU Department Chair, 2009). CSPP also experienced an identity change when the name was changed from CSPP to Alliant University during the reorganization process. For people who had come to the school because of the name, reputation, and brand notoriety of the institution (CSPP), this name change was very concerting. The name issue reverberated with many people. They could care less about how the university is organized or who the president is, but what its called makes a huge difference (CSPP Professor and former CSPP/AIU Board Member, 2009). The former CSPP/AIU president said, People felt like they lost their identity on both sides of the merger, especially with regards to the name. Resistance Several USIU and CSPP senior faculty members said that there was hostile resistance to the merger on both sides because they felt that this change was thrust upon them without their input or consent, and the decision ultimately came from the

378

presidents and those members on the board who supported them. As one USIU faculty member said, There was no input from faculty or other university constituencies. The decision was top-down, from the president. It was her show. Another interviewee, who was a CSPP administrator, said: The CSPP campus administrations and faculty did not have anything to do with the actual decision to do the merger. That was a Board of Trustees and senior management decision. Everyone else was left out of it. We were not included or involved- until it was something we were told to do and then became something we were doing. We did not have anything to do with it until it became a reality for us. And it became a reality in the fall of 2000. I remember having meetings with the whole staff and faculty about it. (CSPP/Alliant Administrator, 2009) Because people were not involved or included in the process that led to the decision to merge, which many saw as a violation of shared governance, decision making, and even trust, the commitment and motivation to make the merger a success were not shared by many people, who were now all of a sudden supposed to implement this decision that they didnt have anything to do with making (CSPP/Alliant Administrator, 2009). A USIU student at the time said, As a dedicated and involved student, I am appalled at the decision to combine USIU and Alliant University. The absence of the student body at large in such a significant decision can only be deemed as an insult. Were [the Presidents] and Boards of Trustees threatened by the voice of the students, or were they just blatantly not interested in listening to the input of the students? Whichever it may be, the outcome of this resolution will affect, if not permanently alter USIU, its students, and its identity. Almost two years ago, I made the decision to attend USIU for three significant reasons: (1) the notable multicultural campus and classroom environment; (2) easy accessibility to transfer to another USIU campus to study abroad at our Mexico City and Nairobi campuses; and (3) the small class sizes allowing for greater learning opportunities. These very reasons for me coming to USIU are now in jeopardy due to the merger of the two universities. While the President said, the courses, faculty, and services will continue to be what they are now,

379

that doesnt secure the future for potential USIU students to experience the uniqueness of USIU. It isnt the immediate consequences of the merger that bothers me, but rather the prospect of USIU losing its identity and merging into another identity that doesnt correlate with the USIU mission. I do not look forward to turn onto the Avenue of Nations entrance where the words U.S. International University are no more. Now that we approach a new future with Alliant University, we have to question the prospect of USIU being able to continue fulfilling its commitment to the unique multicultural education it is known for. I am now left worrying that in the years to come when I tell people the university I graduated from, I will be given the response of, A.I. who? (Banks, 2001, p. 5) According to a USIU dean: Perhaps the hardest part was convincing the USIU students to switch to a semester system. They didnt like that at all. There was resistance to change; and same with the faculty. There were some faculty members who had taught using the quarter system for many years and suddenly they had to change from 10-week quarters to 15-week semesters. (USIU/AIU Dean, 2009). After the merger was underway, some students became even more suspicious that the combination had, in fact been an acquisition, or as one student put it, a buyout. Reader (2001) stated: Time to face it, friends. This was never a merger, as I speculated. USIU faculty will be first to go, with USIU students following a close second. USIU staff and students have no control over it, unless we stand united with our new friends from CSPP, which the administration is making very hard to do. I want to have one student body, but I feel [a] rift growing. [O]nly one CSPP student walked up to me and introduced herself. Aside from that, people from CSPP wont even smile back at me when they walk by. I feel that some of this tension could have been prevented if students from both sides were given the chance to help play a role in facilitating the transition process. (p. 7) Lack of Commitment and Motivation for Merger Success It seems reasonable, then, to question some peoples commitment and motivation to take responsibility for the outcome of the merger if they felt that it was being imposed on them without their concurrence and, as a result, chose not to put forth the effort and

380

dedication to ensure its success. Not involving people early on in this process caused many who shared this feeling to oppose what the administration had decided without their consensus in the process. This would explain the facultys vote of no confidence in the president, whom faculty saw as ultimately responsible for the merger, thereby forcing her to resign. Threatened Egos and Turf Wars Many times, people who are not included in decision making for a change process yet are required to implement that change feel as though they have been undermined. This can be especially true for professionals or experts in given fields, who may feel that their professional knowledge has not been properly considered, thereby creating a perceived threat to their expertise. This often results in peoples becoming protective of the areas that they are in charge of, such as an academic program. For example, some of the CSPP faculty members were hesitant to automatically accept students in USIUs psychology program into CSPPs APA-accredited psychology program. A CSPP faculty member/administrator said, CSPP faculty thought USIU was going to damage CSPPs reputation by buying a struggling institution. What they didnt get was that CSPP was also a struggling institution. A CSPP Professor noted: I think there was some resentment in CSPP faculty thinking: Why do we need this? or Wouldnt we be better off as an independent entity? I think there were some feelings of caution. After the CSPP/AIU president informed CSPP/Alliant University of the merger, she reported the reaction of the CSPP:

381

Theyre not like us; Theyre beneath us. People were saying, If we are going to acquire someone, why not acquire Stanford? CSPP did not have deep pockets and people didnt really realize that. As a result, people on the CSPP side ended up reeling from the restructuring process that had just taken place. (CSPP/AIU President, 2009). Several USIU faculty members also sensed egotism from many CSPP faculty members when displaying their reactions to combining with USIU as being a step down for CSPP and viewing USIU as second rate, especially USIUs undergraduate programs, which CSPP faculty, for the most part, refused to be affiliated with. According to a USIU dean: There was arrogance on the part of many CSPP faculty members. Most of the USIU faculty, taught all levels from bachelors and masters to doctoral. They were not separated according to levels, but rather by program and discipline. So, for example, the business faculty taught undergraduate students, masters (MBA) students, and doctoral-level students. We were proud of this fact. CSPP faculty did not feel the same way. Most of the CSPP faculty did not want anything to do with undergraduate students. They saw themselves as being above them. In hindsight, I sort of understand where they were coming from. They were hired to teach doctoral psychology students at a professional school. So they did not want to be bothered with the rest of it because that is not what they signed on for. This was kind of hard to take at the time because we felt there was a little snootiness. A CSPP Professor and former CSPP/AIU board member said, Many people on the CSPP side saw USIU as an anchor weighing down our reputability and status as a topnotch, professional school. Frustration, Sadness, Anger, and Betrayal After the second year of the merger implementation, when negative consequences were coming to light, many members of the university community experienced various levels of frustration, anger, guilt, sadness, and betrayal. These combined feelings created an overall feeling of negativity, directed mainly toward the administration and those who people felt were responsible for the mergers collapse. In turn, the faculty voted no

382

confidence in the president, and a large majority of the students and staff agreed with the facultys actions. However, despite this overwhelming negativity, many people, including students, faculty, and staff, continued to offer solutions to pending problems rather than wasting time and energy complaining about them. One student remarked: I believe the greatest weakness of our school is not being able to properly manage our money. We are a private university with a great emphasis in business and finance. Therefore it is very depressing that we cannot run a working budget. The president is always talking about the future of our university, the changes and upgrades that will be happening, but where are those changes? We have mostly seen downsizing and budget cuts. How is this beneficial and where has the money gone? These are questions that many of us at this university have been asking one another, but have yet to receive an appropriate response. My solution for this problem is to use our resources, such as the professors who specialize in accounting and finance. The university needs to look at where we are spending unnecessary funds and focus on spending them in necessary areas. (Lewis, 2003, p. 4) RQ20: What areas of the university had the most resistance and least resistance? In addition to the various reactions to the merger, there were accompanying levels of resistance held by university constituents from both CSPP and USIU because people were proud of their distinct culture, mission, identity, and values. The former CSPP/AIU president said, Resistance was met by anybody who felt that they were losing something, whether that was academic standards, prestige, physical space, name, or identity. One interviewee said that USIU undergraduate students and CSPP faculty were the most resistant to the merger: USIU undergraduate students and CSPP faculty were resistant because they were proud of the community they belonged to and didnt want that to change, especially with regards to the name. USIU undergraduate students were resistant because they strongly identified with USIU and did not want their university to

383

change. CSPP faculty were resistant because they felt that they were left out of the decision-making process. Because CSPP was an institution founded by faculty, the decision to implement a merger without their consultation was very upsetting. CSPP faculty members were resistant to the merger because they had not adopted, identified, or even liked the name Alliant. As far as they were concerned, they still felt like CSPP. Another CSPP interviewee noted how resentful and opposed to the idea of merger the CSPP students were in the beginning. They were particularly concerned about the continued reputation of CSPP. Some students asked, Can we still say that we graduated from CSPP or do we have to say that we graduated from Alliant? Most CSPP students at that time wanted their diplomas to say CSPP, not Alliant. In addition, the CSPP San Diego students and faculty members were upset because they had to move from their Cornerstone campus to the USIU Scripps Ranch campus. There was a belief that the facilities were not of the same quality, nor did they provide the amount of space that was needed. Former USIU President Hays said that the USIU alumni had significant resistance mainly because of the name change. Alumni from both USIU and CSPP were concerned because they didnt want the name of the institution they graduated from (USIU or CSPP) on their diplomas to cease to exist. Overall, it appears that USIU faculty held the least amount of resistance because they trusted the USIU president and knew that he was doing all he could to try and preserve the mission and legacy of USIU. Another interviewee said that the USIU faculty members were open to exploring ways the two institutions could come together

384

and mesh. Some of the interviewees suggested that this was most likely due to the poor economic state of USIU. One of the interviewees noted the negativity associated with being resistant to change: You need to either accept the other sides policies and procedures or come up with a new and improved version which combines the best of both. This is an opportunity for both sides to examine their operations and see what works best. RQ21: How did the universitys leadership respond to or overcome this resistance? Eastman and Lang (2001) stated that: For the leaders of both institutions, preparing ones institution for merger may involve addressing pockets of resistance, opposition, and anxiety and creating a positive climate for negotiations and for eventual integration. In the delicate and important days and weeks after merger, the new members of the organization should be welcomed into it, and treated with respect by the organization of which they have become a part. Creating this climate may require concerted awarenessraising beginning early on. Some de-mythologizing may be called for. (p. 223) The former USIU president said that he and his staff worked very hard at rumor control. In addition, the administration and the faculty assembly encouraged people to work together. A USIU dean commented, We listened to people and explained what was happening. Various meetings were held to bring people from both sides together. The former CSPP/AIU president said that efforts were made to preserve the cultures of both institutions when bringing them together. However, she noted that personalities can always interfere.

385

Change RQ22: What were the major changes made after the merger/acquisition? As noted, many changes associated with bringing two institutions together were implemented, including name changes, presidential leadership changes, and systematic changes. One of the major changes for the USIU faculty was converting from a traditional tenure system to three- and five-year rolling contract system. Another major change for USIU was converting from a continuous enrollment quarter system to a semester system. A major change for CSPP-San Diego was moving to the USIU Scripps Ranch campus. Academic changes included replacing USIUs psychology department and programs with CSPPs programs because CSPP had APA accreditation. USIU psychology faculty members as well as USIU psychology students were given the option to continue under the new CSPP program or finish out their program. One CSPP professor said, The CSPP psychology programs basically stayed the same. We used to have programs within a school and now were a school within a university. One interviewee said that not a lot of changes were made in the beginning with regard to eliminating staff positions. The former CSPP/AIU presidents intention was to not have any major personnel changes. She made it clear that she felt every single person was going to be needed to make the transition and combination successful (USIU/Alliant General Counsel, 2009). One of the major changes that occurred with regard to academics was the creation of a system-wide program review that assessed every program to see which ones were viable. A committee headed by the provost was formed, and faculty were organized into teams, each assessing two to three undergraduate and graduate programs. Then the teams

386

would select one of the programs to be subject to discontinuation. One interviewee remarked, From my perspective, it appeared like there was a hidden agenda at play because both the undergraduate programs and graduate programs were assessed exactly the same way, which made the undergraduate programs seem less attractive in comparison to the graduate programs, which resulted in discontinuing many of the undergraduate programs. The result of this assessment led to eliminating 10 out of the 12 undergraduate programs. One interviewee thought that this was a defining period with regard to undergraduate education at Alliant and has paved the way for future cuts, especially at the undergraduate level. Because the universitys information systems had not been integrated, one interviewee who served on an assessment team said that one of the most frustrating parts of this undertaking was that the teams did not have accurate budget information, which made an effective assessment difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Shortly thereafter, undergraduate enrollment dropped to an all-time low. In 2004-05, a new acting president, and, later, president, was hired with a huge mess to clean up. He created his Renaissance Plan which, among other things, included an undergraduate two-year completion model. The rationale behind this model was that since the community colleges already do a good job delivering general education, rather than compete against them, Alliant should instead create transfer partnership agreements with them. That year, the Center for Undergraduate Education (CUE) was created to administer all the undergraduate programs.

387

RQ23: What were the results or outcomes of those changes? According to one interviewee, The changes were a result of the fact that both institutions were going through significant challenges. USIU was already struggling with how to do it right. And USIU was acquired by an institution (CSPP) that was in the midst of its own internal reorganization transition. And because CSPP didnt have undergraduate education, this made it even more challenging (CSPP/Alliant Administrator, 2009). This ultimately resulted in eliminating the first two years of undergraduate education and changing to a two-year completion model that offers only the junior and senior years of college. This means that the university no longer offers general education courses and accepts only transfer students. This also led to discontinuing other aspects typical to traditional undergraduate student life, such as athletics. USIU and AIU (for the first three years of the merger) had competed in NAIA Division intercollegiate athletics in mens and womens soccer, mens and womens cross-country and track, mens and womens tennis, and womens volleyball. One interviewee said that there were extra layers of administration to go through. There was a lot of re-educating and re-training people for new jobs and new ways of doing things. The former CSPP/AIU president recalled the change as uncharted territory for both institutions. RQ24: How do the interviewees personally feel about those changes? The reactions from interviewees regarding their feelings about whether merging was in the best interest of both institutions ranged from strong support to uncertainty. Most agreed that it was difficult in the beginning, especially with regard to the finances, while others thought that Alliant has since become a stronger, better university than either institution was separately. One interviewee said that successful integration and

388

synergy had been prolonged, while another interviewee noted that there were, indeed, growing pains, in which it has taken some soul searching to keep on the right track. One interviewee felt that the changes and challenges regarding undergraduate education were an uphill battle, especially after changing to the two-year completion model, which has resulted in a decreased population of international students. It also has been difficult to recruit domestic community college students, as they mostly transfer to public universities because public universities are generally much cheaper than private universities. One CSPP professor said that the merger felt forced, as CSPP faculty had no say in the decision making process. RQ25: How has the merger/acquisition affected the interviewees view of the university? Overall, most of the interviewees had a relatively positive view of the university today, although some from CSPP still question the benefits that CSPP has gained from merging with USIU, especially in terms of Alliants lesser-known reputation and credibility, which CSPP had worked so hard to develop. The interviewees from USIU felt that merging with CSPP was in the best interest of both institutions, although some said that they felt like USIU is now gone or dead. An interviewee from USIU said that the University is now a completely different place and that she doesnt like it as much and doesnt identify with the new institution: It definitely is not the institution I came to. USIU felt like home and I was proud to be a part of it. I dont have the same passion and pride in the school now like I did with USIU. One interviewee thought that the university was amazingly resilient for overcoming the obstacles and pitfalls associated with the integration and being able to

389

weather the storm. At the same time, though, its taken its toll on people. Another interviewee spoke positively, saying that the merger/acquisition turned us (CSPP) into a university. Another interviewee from CSPP said that he felt as though people have come together more and there is more acceptance and less resentment. Whats done is done, and we cant go back. RQ26: How has the mission/vision and culture/identity changed for the merged university? Alliant International Universitys new mission and vision reflects the mission and visions of its former legacy institutions, CSPP and USIU. The new mission and vision is one that combines the multicultural focus of CSPP with the international focus of USIU as exhibited through I-MERIT (International-Multicultural Education Research Intervention and Training), a university-wide endeavor that seeks to infuse an international and multicultural focus into all of the universitys activities. In turn, the culture/identity of the previous separate institutions were brought together to reflect the new combined mission/vision. The other aspect that has changed in terms of the mission/vision and culture/identity is that Alliant now focuses on being a professional practice university, thereby training its students to become professionals in their given field and area of expertise, and directs its programs toward graduate students. The notion of Alliants being a professional practice institution also reflects the mission/vision and culture/identity of the previous institutions because both CSPP and USIU had programs that were essentially professional and practice based. Several interviewees noted that there was an initial conflict when combining the focuses of multiculturalism and internationalism:

390

In the beginning, there was a lot of friction with merging these two concepts. CSPP was multicultural, but with a domestic U.S.-based perspective which meant championing differences among various populations, communities, and cultural groups such as minorities, people with disabilities, people in rural locations, the LGBT community, and other underprivileged and underserved groups. CSPP reached out specifically to these groups. USIU, however, was founded by William Rust, whose mission and vision was to bring together people from different religions, different cultures, and different countries, with the idea being that, in reality, there were very little differences among them. Consequently, the focus was on the commonality of people and values, despite differences in religion, ethnicity, origin, country, and culture. In the beginning, the international side of USIU clashed with the multicultural side of CSPP. While CSPP focused on peoples differences, USIU emphasized the idea of understanding and opening oneself up to peoples differences, but with the goal of discovering commonality or universal humanism between different people. Therefore, in interpreting the meaning of multiculturalism and internationalism, these accepted ideologies and values created a conflict in the combined institutional culture and identity. It was a difficult task to bring these two sides together, but, as one interviewee stated, Now we have I-MERIT, which is about combining internationalism and multiculturalism. In terms of the differences in culture/identity, various interviewees from USIU described USIU as a tight-knit family. One interviewee said that USIU faculty, students, and staff were regularly invited to the presidents house. We would have assemblies, sports rallies, festivals. We had a very strong campus community and culture. Another interviewee said that there was a passion for USIU on the part of

391

many students, faculty, and staff. There was a feeling people had about it. There was a climate of caring and a spirit of friendliness. Another interviewee said that there was an excitement about the international aspect, where people felt like they were part of something unique. CSPP also was a tight-knit community, but in a different respect. It was a community of faculty practitioners who shared the same professional identity, the profession of psychology, and each campus had its own community and culture. They also were proud to be part of something unique. A faculty member of CSPP said: We were very proud of who we were. We would say things like Were the nations oldest and largest independent stand-alone graduate professional school of psychology. We had a lot of pride that we were started by practitioners and people working in the field, not just in pure research like at the universities. Our training is real world-based and provides hands-on experience. We were also proud of our diversity and that more students of color went to CSPP and practiced in under-served communities. There was a lot of pride in who we were and what we did within the School. (CSPP Professor, 2009) CSPP was unique and very ahead of its time, as was USIU. The uniqueness is something people tend to cling to, which is what led to a clash in the institutional cultures and identities, or, as one interviewee described it, our biggest hurdle to get over. Each institution had a strong mission/vision and culture/identity and were equally proud of their legacy. They did not want to change into what one interviewee referred to as wishy washy. People were still holding on to their old mission/visions. An interviewee from USIU stated, I wanted to hold on to that identity of peace, love, and understanding for all people of the world. Even though we had combined our operations and systems with CSPP, there was no common identity for the new institution. Another interviewee from USIU said:

392

Those of us who had been with USIU formed a strong connection, membership, and loyalty to the institution, which has shaped and affected our personal identity as individuals and as a collective community. For a lot of us, it is so much more than a workplace or a job, its who we are, and that identity is hard to let go. Another interviewee said: One of the most difficult aspects of the merger/combination was creating a new institutional identity and then getting people to accept that new identity. For people who have been with either USIU or CSPP, our identities havent changed; weve remained attached to our former institutions. The merging of the cultures has been very difficult for the people who identify with either CSPP or USIU. Newcomers, on the other hand, dont have affiliations to the former institutions so they can probably better identify with the new institution. They most likely are not able to relate to the people who have been here. For new people, the institution is what it is and they have never known it to be any different. Some students think that the two cultures and identities have since become more integrated. Theres still a little bit of us versus them, but its nothing too dramatic. Several interviewees felt that the USIU culture and identity are no longer apparent, while the CSPP culture and identity is alive and well. Because CSPP acquired USIU, the CSPP culture dominated. Although some interviewees from CSPP were disgruntled by the decisions to change names and become a university, many feel that the CSPP name and identity is now being revived. A CSPP faculty member said: It feels like CSPP has started to regain its identity. I think were trying to go towards a similar model of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania or the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. I think we are closer to that now and I think that is a good thing and an important part of the culture. I know that the psychology students say, I go to school at CSPP. And I think that is good. I dont think it diminishes Alliant, but rather adds to and enhances it. I feel like were finally starting to coalesce around how this schooluniversity thing fits together. (CSPP Professor, 2009) Another CSPP faculty member was very positive about the merging of CSPPs multicultural focus with USIUs international focus, particularly with regard to the name.

393

I think having the word international as part of the university name really supports our mission. For example, we hear people say, We should do this because we are an international university, which has helped craft our behavior and identity since international is our middle name. (CSPP Professor, 2009) Another interviewee believed that the historical strengths of the former institutions have become more integrated since the university was placed under Show Cause. Being placed on Show Cause forced us to ask the crucial questions and figure out what we are really about. The legacy institutions of CSPP and USIU were both innovative and interesting institutions in their day. CSPP was the first freestanding school of professional psychology and USIU was the first internationally oriented institution based in America. Both were pioneers in their respective missions and identities. The Show Cause allowed us to focus on areas that we had in common rather than on our differences. I-MERIT was a perfect metaphor for that because it brought together CSPPs orientation on multiculturalism (which was called MERIT) and USIUs orientation on internationalism (I) and its prideful lineage with international education. I-MERIT brought these together which became a symbolic endeavor that the new institution could rally around and realize that were more together than we are separately. Instead of seeing it as we no longer have what we once had, it has become we have more together. People could see that this institution was becoming bigger and more complex and more interesting if you compare it to what drew people to the institutions in the first place. This made it more of a passion about mission than working together in crisis mode. Overall, the interviewees spoke positively about I-MERIT as an initiative to bring the two institutional missions/visions and cultures/identities together, which, in turn, has united the multicultural focus of CSPP with the international focus of USIU and has shaped the current mission/vision and culture/identity of Alliant International University today. Most of the interviewees agreed that the mission/vision and culture/identity has become more cohesive and that there is more looking forward than looking back in terms of focusing on plans for the future rather than on dwelling on the past. However, one interviewee stated that CSPP basically functions independently and that there is not much that connects [CSPP] to the university. Other interviewees

394

noted that CSPP students and faculty identify more with their school than with the larger university and that there is no sense of Alliant-ness. One interviewee noted the inconsistency in the name and brand of the university. I hear people refer to the institution as Alliant University or AIU, not Alliant International University or Alliant. Another interviewee said that a faculty member had written a best-selling book that was translated into 40 languages and on the cover jacket of her book it notes her affiliation with Alliant University. The faculty member/author is a highly regarded person in her field and it is a great opportunity to promote and publicize the Institution, but the name remains unclear and inconsistent. So if were trying to put ourselves on the map, we need to have a clear, coherent, and consistent message, let alone name. We need to start with the name and figure out how all this fits together. We also dont call ourselves AIU anymore because of American Intercontinental University, otherwise known as AIU Online, so we dont want to be confused with that university. But a lot of people, even within our University, dont know this and still refer to the University as AIU. I dont think this stuff gets communicated in a clear, consistent way. If we are trying to build a common and coherent identity, we need to understand why we are this and why we are not that and least of all, what to call ourselves. (CSPP Professor and Former CSPP/AIU Board Member, 2009) RQ27: How would the interviewees describe the mission/vision and culture/identity today, ten years after the merger/acquisition? Since the combination, many things have changed for the university that now exist today, including its mission/vision and culture/identity, and it continues to change, grow, and evolve with time. Some feel that this time has allowed a greater sense of acceptance and continuity to take place. However, others still cling to the past and havent really moved on. One interviewee from CSPP said, CSPP used to be very tight. We were very much like a family. We looked out for each other. We protected each

395

other. We did things individually that benefited the whole. I dont think that this really happens now. It is starting to happen, but we havent gotten there yet (CSPP Professor, 2009). Even though it has been a decade since the merger took place, there is still is a longing to go back to the way things were and to guard against further change. It has been particularly difficult for some to adjust to the larger size and scope of the institution. One interviewee from CSPP summarized this sentiment: I think there still is a feeling, for the people who were here before and through the merger, to protect their turf. We are told that we need to do things individually to benefit the whole, but before the merger took place people used to do this on their own without needing to be told. I think the old timers much more identify with CSPP. Before the merger the faculty were the administrators and the administrators were the faculty and so everybody was on a relatively equal footing. Even the program directors and administrators were thought of more as faculty, like colleagues. There was not as much of a hierarchy and systemic administration as there has been since the merger. (CSPP Professor, 2009) Getting used to the new, system-wide structure has been a major adjustment. Even though CSPP was one institution made up of several campuses before the merger, it was run more like a loose affiliation than a unified system. After the merger, the system of campuses were organized into one university, and this led some to feel it was top heavy and micromanaged. No longer were the individual campuses autonomous. They were now pieces of a larger puzzle that came with its own set of challenges. It used to be an easier ship to manage and now it is much more complex. Today, the name still is not widely accepted or embraced by the university community. Both institutions were proud of their names and reputations as institutions of higher learning. Getting an organizations name recognized by the public takes years to accomplish, and starting over makes it so much harder to build on the name recognition 396

already achieved. One CSPP faculty member said, The reputation of Alliant is nonexistent in the world. The reputation of CSPP is top notch. Even CSPP faculty say Were CSPP faculty at Alliant. I dont think anybody just says Alliant. Another interviewee stated, People dont identify with Alliant as much as they identified with their former institutions. Other interviewees echoed this sentiment on both sides of the merger. However, most of the people from USIU are no longer at the university today; therefore, as one interviewee put it, The USIU side is pretty much gone. In terms of the two mission/visions and cultures/identities coming together, one interviewee thought the university now is more integrated and has moved toward the professional school model of CSPP, which has become institutionalized. Another interviewee from USIU believes that the culture of the university today is not the same, but similar to the culture at USIU. Both institutions strongly valued diversity and catering to a diverse student body and community. This value is now woven into nearly every aspect of university life. Today, the university celebrates these common values rather than confronts them. One interviewee spoke very positively about the culture that exists today: I dont think people see it as a merged institution anymore. I think they see it as Alliant International University. I-MERIT: Bridging the Gap Much of the success in combining the two cultures is attributed to I-MERIT, which has worked diligently to combine the international aspect of USIU with the multicultural aspect of CSPP. I-MERIT is a university-wide initiative that provides

397

leadership in the implementation of the universitys diversity initiatives. Alliant has established institutional diversity objectives as well as multicultural/ international competencies for all students, faculty, and staff/administrators. The system-wide IMERIT office provides resources, consultation, and training to academic programs and administrative offices to make cultural competence part and parcel of all aspects of the university. Each campus has an I-MERIT Committee, comprised of students, staff, and faculty, which sponsors events and projects. The work of I-MERIT is supported by an Associate Provost and an Associate Director. Since the implementation of I-MERIT, one faculty member from USIU said that: The culture has improved significantly since the first few years of the merger. There is more respect for and interest in international diversity. [The new President] has largely healed the rift between the faculty and the administration. The old CSPP faculty members seem to be somewhat more trusting of the administration although there are still lingering hostilities, particularly on campuses where the union operates. There are tensions and resentments between the union and nonunion faculties. I-MERIT has helped bridge the two very different diversity philosophies of the two former institutions. Some CSPP faculty still have a problem understanding what it means to be in a university rather than just a professional school, but there is progress and far fewer hostilities. There is still not much cross disciplinary collaboration like there was at USIU, and there is still some of the CSPP arrogance. However, things are improving. I think we are all much happier now than in the bad years after the merger. The future looks optimistic, particularly with [the new President] at the helm. He is doing a great job. (Alliant online survey, 2009) Leadership RQ28: How would the interviewees describe the leadership in place during the merger/acquisition? During a merger/acquisition, leadership plays a critical role. Interviewees were asked to describe the leadership in place during the merger/acquisition, namely, the 398

university president. Common terms used to describe her leadership were visionary, top-down, autocratic, dictatorial, bureaucratic, and big-picture person. Many of the interviewees criticized the president for being distant,, controlling, cold, stand-offish, and unreceptive to different or opposing views. Most of the interviewees agreed that her most common flaws during the merger/ acquisition process were that she was not open to other peoples input and ideas and that communication was weak. This really upset people, especially the faculty, who traditionally were very involved with the decision-making process at their institutions and valued it highly. During the Show Cause sanction, WASC also criticized the president for exhibiting some of these leadership attributes and not instituting shared governance during a time when people generally want to be kept informed about what is going on. In addition to not being communicative enough during the merger process, the president also was described as being a visionary who initiated radical change, but when it came to the implementation process, she didnt like to do the grunt work. One interviewee who had worked with the president for approximately eight years said that she was a big-idea person who liked to initiate big things. However, it seemed as though the smaller things didnt hold her interest as much and sooner or later she was ready to move on to the next big adventure. Another interviewee agreed that the President had vision. But often people with vision cant implement the down-and-dirty day-to-day requirements of that vision. Another interviewee noted that the president, at times, was fearless when she needed to be fearful. She was fearless in making radical change, bold moves, and taking

399

risks, but when it was time for implementation, she sort of fell asleep at the wheel. She was not seen as actively managing the institution. That is often one of the setbacks with visionary people: They like big projects, big ideas, and radical change, but sometimes dont have the patience or skills to finish what they have started before moving on to the next big thing. Much of the criticism pointed at the president was focused primarily on the management side of implementing the merger/acquisition: There were a lot of things that were not being managed wellmoney being the primary one. Thats what got us into so much trouble. She had the wrong people in the wrong jobs, and the issues with staff and offices (Financial Aid and Student Accounts) just didnt get dealt with. These are many of the things that visionary folks get tripped up on. (CSPP/AIU Administrator, 2009). On the CSPP side, she was criticized for initiating change too quickly and not completing previous projects. CSPP was in the middle of merging the four campuses into one system and, as one interviewee said, Just as the CSPP faculty members were finally beginning to get on board and make headway with this reorganization process, the President interrupts it with a new merger/acquisition. This was too much change all at once for many from CSPP to process. Another interviewee from USIU believed that the president bit off more than she could chew by taking on a merger/acquisition with another university in the middle of a complete campus restructuring project. In terms of the new centralized, system-wide leadership/management structure, many of the interviewees found this system difficult to adjust to. One of the interviewees from CSPP preferred the autonomous campus model over the system-wide model because CSPP had an administrative/academic leader (campus chancellor) on each campus so that students and faculty were able to interact and meet with this person face-

400

to-face. Unfortunately, there is no longer a person in charge on the campus level. There is a system-wide administrator, but that person is not physically located on all the campuses and has to administer the programs remotely from whatever campus they are located on. One interviewee noted, With the current structure, implemented by [the former CSPP/AIU president], it feels like leadership and accountability is off somewhere else where we cant see or meet with them. We are accountable to our programs, but not really to the system wide school or university at a face-to-face level. Whoever is in charge is off on another campus. Another interviewee noted the difficulty with this structure in achieving synergy, stating that it is very difficult for real synergy to take place since responsibility and accountability are so dispersed. A former system-wide provost, who preferred face-to-face interaction with colleagues, said that she found it very challenging and taxing to be constantly traveling to all the campuses. She stated, It was harder to connect with people in that system-wide role. The overall academic leadership had been disassembled on the campus level so both the faculty and system wide administration felt a little disconnected from each other at times. In describing her own leadership style, the former CSPP/AIU president said that, under normal circumstances, she generally tries to be consultative and work on consensus building, but this situation required her to be more directive as the overall decision maker. Her leadership style was more situational, and she felt that this style of command-and-control leadership was best suited for her role. Yet, with great power comes great responsibility, and the president was aware that she bore much of the responsibility in the overall outcome of the merger: I was directive. I had to give bad

401

news answers. In the final analysis, it was useful for the Institution to have someone to blame. RQ29: How do the interviewees describe the leadership in place today? After the former CSPP/AIU president stepped down, a new university president was brought in. Interviewees were asked to describe the leadership that is now in place, namely, the current Alliant International University president, and most of them had positive things to say. Several interviewees noted the improvement in communication since the new president took over the helm. The first thing [the new university president] did when he came in was communicate with everybody and listen to people. Another interviewee said that the new president did an extremely effective job of getting the campuses to talk to each other, asking for their ideas. Another interviewee said that the current president has a much more open style and does a better job in getting people to talk to one another. After he surveyed the various campus constituencies, the new president presented his Renaissance Plan, offering up his ideas and suggestions on how to reposition the university, going forward. After he released his Renaissance Plan he again solicited responses and input from students, staff, and faculty before putting it into place. One interviewee said that, although the plan itself was top-down, he didnt push it down. He asked for feedback before he implemented it. In terms of communicating with the different constituencies, one interviewee said that she thought the new president tries to make sure people understand whats working, whats not, and what we need to do. One interviewee said that, because the new

402

president is very open in his communications, he had built up a strong reservoir of trust. Another interviewee said that the new president tends to be more collaborative and interactive. Any college president who doesnt do that wont last very long. One interviewee faculty member, who also was a former board member, noted the change in leadership at the presidential and board level, particularly in regard to financial acumen: Many of the new Board members who came in after the aftermath of the former CSPP/AIU Presidents departure were selected because they had financial expertise, which hadnt existed on the previous Board. The current President was hired in part because the previous Board, President, and upper management had not been strong enough, especially with regards to financial administration. Overall, most of the interviewees agree that the new president has been a good leader, has made the combination successful, and has done a better job of being visible and letting us get to know him, which, in turn, allows us to have more trust in him and in his vision. There is also a greater sense of openness and the feeling that you are being heard. Another interviewee stated, It is a much more inclusive environment. I think we have a much better version of shared governance now than we did back then. Communication and trust go hand in hand, and to make a serious change, people need to trust their leader. One interviewee summarized this idea: In the end, the presidents job is to make the tough decisions, and many times these decisions do not sit well with constituents which is why it is so important for a university president to be inclusive and involve people in the decision making process. If people feel that they are not being heard and the president is not listening to anyone and just doing his/her own thing without any input from university constituencies, that person will not last long. The University leadership now compared to the leadership then is like night and day with regards to keeping people informed and involved.

403

The leadership style of the new university president was also situational, but in this situation, he exhibited an approach similar to the selling/coaching style that entails seeking input and participation from university constituents so that they are active and engaged in the change process. On describing his leadership style, the current university president said: My general approach to leading Alliant has been to take a hard look at the facts of our situation and look for ways to turn these facts into strengths. We are, in fact, a complex organization, and we attempt to serve multiple missions. While this may run counter to conventional wisdom, it is a longstanding practice at Alliant and its legacy institutions to defy convention. We pursue a network of interrelated, mutually supported goals that, in combination, give Alliant a unique and important place in the world of higher education. (The Missions We Serve document) RQ30: What kind of leadership do interviewees think is needed during a merger/acquisition? After comparing and contrasting the two leadership styles of the former and current university presidents, interviewees were asked what type of leadership they think is needed during a merger/acquisition situation. One of the interviewees, who is a professor in management and teaches courses in leadership, said that an effective leader is consultative, a team-builder, and understands change as well as what it takes to overcome resistance to change. All the typical strengths of good leadership apply during a crisis situation. And a merger/acquisition is a crisis situation. It is disrupting to all those involved. Essentially, leadership is change management, and change management entails managing the people side, the systems side, and the process side of change. This interviewee went on to say,

404

Harry Truman said that leadership is getting people to do what they dont want to do. Good leadership is getting people to do what they dont want to do and like it. Thats what the last USIU President tried to do and was marginally successful at. But he wasnt around long enough. And then came the next AIU President, and she didnt understand that. She thought that leadership was about getting people to do things that they dont want to do. And then came the new and current Alliant President and he does understand that. And for the most part he has been successful because he understands the importance of communication. And he has shown people whats in it for them and whats in it for the University. One of the lessons that I use for my classes are the 3 secrets of successful leadership. The first secret is to surround yourself with the best people possible and give them the best resources possible to succeed and if you do that then the other 2 secrets arent important. Another interviewee noted the importance of practicing what you preach (or teach). You have to set an example of leadership, especially if you are training and educating students to go out into the world and become leaders. If you dont operate that way yourself, then youre a hypocrite. Thats how this whole financial economic mess that were in as a country occurred, and still to this day, no one will admit to having played his or her part in it. These people obviously were brought up learning that it was ok to be that way. An educational institution is supposed to be the opposite of this. Everyone makes mistakes, but a good person and a smart person does not make the same mistake twice. You have to own it when you really mess up and, yes, you pay the price for it, but you have to be the bigger person and move on and learn from it. Another interviewee agreed that a good leader is someone who owns up to his/her decisions: A leader is someone who not only makes hard decisions, but has to stand by those decisions and be there for his/her people. A leader never puts blame on anybody or passes judgment. This experience taught me how to be a leader and how to manage through difficult times. I know that the most important thing for me is to be there for the people, even if they dont agree with me. I have to be the big person and stand up in front of folks and take the arrows. Former USIU President Hays also noted the importance of leading by example. He stated that it is critical for a leader to set a tone and create a culture of caring, hard work, communication, involvement, empowerment, integrity, and commitment, and trusting not only the leader in charge, but within and among colleagues. Hays said that

405

his goal was to create a culture of passion for the university and invigorate it with school spirit. He did this by being actively involved in the university, attending sporting events and school functions, and even inviting faculty and students to his home. In terms of creating a culture of hard work, he led by example by being the first one to arrive and the last one to leave campus every day. In terms of leading during a merger/acquisition scenario, Hays said that a leader must be able to diffuse hostile situations and manage crises. Other interviewees noted the importance of communication during major change, specifically, clear, consistent communication as well as being open to different viewpoints while bringing as many people into the conversation as is practical and possible and consulting with key constituents. A good communicator is also a good listener. It is important to listen to people. That does not mean that everyone gets what they want, but at least people are heard and given a fair chance to express their opinion. Being a good listener means asking for help, asking for ideas, having a dialogue and then making a decision and moving forward with an implementation strategy that helps people make it happen. Another interviewee agreed that, Regardless of a merger scenario, you need leadership that is collaborative, inclusive, and listens to constituents. Eventually you have to make a decision, but initially it is important to be open to other peoples opinions and gather information. A former provost stated, You have to be able to listen, maintain a balance of power so that people feel like they are being heard and are part of the decision making process, as well as uphold a vision that others can embrace.

406

Another interviewee said that it is important for a leader to be sensitive to cultural differences: It takes involvement of people from all levels so that everybody feels like they are a part of it rather than just being told what to do. If people feel like they were at least heard and their input was considered, then they will respect the leaders final decision. Another interviewee stated, The leader has to pay special attention to the human element and the cultural differences during radical change, especially when changing peoples name and identity. The leader also has to communicate what this means to other stakeholders, even if they are not in the physical place where all the merger activity is happening. At the very least, communication helps keep people informed and can pave the way towards longer term trust. Trust is an essential element of good leadership, particularly in a merger/ acquisition situation. One of the major differences between the leadership styles of the two presidents was the trust factor. People did not trust the former CSPP/AIU president because some saw her as aloof or distant. One interviewee stated: In this case, I think the sense of distance and lack of trust went hand in hand together in terms of why the University had no confidence in her. When someone is distant, it is difficult to trust them because you dont know them. When she received the vote of no confidence people said that there was a crisis of integrity because that is how she appeared. She may have had the best intentions, but the faculty wouldnt have known it because she didnt make herself known. There was no shared vision about where the University was going and there was also a lack of a sense of were in this together. Instead it wasnt clear what the direction was and who this leader is that is supposedly leading us. A good leader has to be close to those he or she is leading in instill trust and inspire confidence. Despite the styles of leadership, one commonality that the former and current presidents shared was a leadership that was situation-based. Many of the interviewees agreed that different situations call for different styles of leadership. However, the effectiveness of those styles can also vary considerably, depending on the constituency

407

that is being led, in this case, faculty, students, and staff. One interviewee summarized this notion: During times of crisis, you need a steady hand to help people weather through the difficult period. It takes a certain willingness to step into this kind of chaos. Its kind of like a firefighter. You know it is dangerous and risky, but you have to do it because its your job. Most academic institutions move at a glacial pace so not many academic leaders are crisis leaders. One style may be more about preserving an existing culture while the other style is about creating a new culture. So when you get past that crisis stage, you may need a different kind of leader. Ultimately you need someone who can bring diverse things together and make tough decisions. I also think it depends on the kind of merger it is. In this case, we had a lot of the typical problems seen in most organizational mergers, but we also had our unique problems too like the fact that the institution is made up of people who are generally very vocal, faculty and students. For this type of constituency, you need a leader who is engaged and inclusive, not distant and secretive. Another interviewee also discussed different situations calling for different leadership styles: At times you need a visionary, outside-the-box thinker to shake things up when things become stagnant and there becomes a need to innovate. In times of distress, like during drastic change or crisis, you need an engaging leader to calm things down and manage the change process. Every leader is probably going to reach a point where their particular skill-set is no longer relevant for the institution or organization to move forward. In a steady-as-you-go environment, a leader who tries to preserve rather than make change might be successful, but today it is rare for any institution or organization to be in a stagnant environment. Therefore successful leaders today are the ones who are best able to initiate and manage change that is beneficial to and valued by the institution they are leading. While certain situations require a visionary innovator, other situations require objective analysis and strategic management. Mostly, though, a combination of many of these attributes is needed, found in the people that make up the leadership of the university who work together to achieve the goals set forth. A former trustee commented,

408

I dont think there is just one style of leadership that is needed. You need people capable of careful, objective analysis to see if a deal even makes sense. You need people with experience who have done mergers or acquisitions before and understand the full meaning and impact of the deal and what it means to the organizations and people involved. You also rarely, if ever, reach your full projections so youve got to be realistic. The negotiation of the deal requires some pretty savvy lawyers and financial people who have experience in this area. The skills you need and the mission changes over time so the leadership skills need to match the needs and mission of the organization. You first need to determine if the deal is a good opportunity. Then you need to figure out where the synergies are going to come from. After that you need to structure a deal that satisfies both of the partners objectives. The kind of management needed depends on the situation and what you are trying to achieve. You definitely need many kinds of skills in the portfolio. Lastly, once the merger is implemented, as one interviewee said, You need the stay the course kind of strength to see it through. And you need strength across the entire leadership team so that stability can be established and the real effects can take shape. RQ31: What do interviewees perceive are the most successful and least successful outcomes of the merger/acquisition? Merger/acquisition success is ultimately determined by its outcome or end result. Interviewees were asked to describe the most successful and least successful outcomes as a result of the combination. The definition of success varied with each interviewee and what they view as successful for the university, whether that meant programmatically, financially, or culturally. For example, one interviewee thought that the combined financial strength of the university was the most successful outcome, stating, That was the biggest problem before the merger/acquisition. Another interviewee agreed, stating, The most successful outcome was the financial gain for both institutions. This was not

409

the case early on, but now the university seems to be better off financially than either institution would have been on its own. Another interviewee believed that survival was the most successful outcome. We did survive and were still at it. The success story is that it was ultimately pulled together. Another interviewee thought that the most successful outcome was that students were able to continue in their programs and, for the most part, faculty continued to have jobs. Another interviewee agreed that, even in the midst of change, the university still continued to function for the students, and the students were able to progress without interruption. The interviewee stated:
I think you have to look at the concept of success, specifically as it relates to our most important function at the University which is the education of our students. To that end, I believe that the most successful outcome of our particular combination was that we did provide continued, seamless, and quality education to our students. That is the core of who and what we are. I have to hope that the majority of our students did not experience the turmoil that the organization was going through because it was hard and painful.

An administrator from CSPP said that the most successful outcome was that, as a combined institution, Weve gained some talented and valuable people from both sides. Another interviewee agreed and said, As a positive, Ive certainly enjoyed meeting people from other departments. Another interviewee stated, Together we are stronger than we are apart. In addition, Weve gained more opportunities to better serve our students by providing a more comprehensive set of services as more of a traditional university in a professional practice setting. They may not be a direct result of the merger/acquisition, but nonetheless some of the research centers, grants obtained, conferences, partnerships, initiatives, and institutes were cited as part of the most successful outcomes, such as the Rockway Institute for

410

LGBT research, the newly titled California School of Forensic Studies (CSFS) which has expanded its programs to new campus locations, I-MERIT, an Addictions Institute, the Institute for Violence, Abuse, and Trauma, Institute on Disability and Health Psychology, the Latino Achievement Initiative, Alliant Makes a Difference Day (community outreach), the annual Leadership Conference, international university partnerships, and Title V grant funding for an Academic Success Center for undergraduates. Some of the interviewees viewed the outcomes in terms of cultural aspects and influence, particularly those from USIU. An interviewee from USIU said that the most successful outcome was that CSPP is stronger and more integrated, while the least successful outcome was the destruction of the USIU culture and that USIU is basically gone. Another interviewee from USIU felt that the least successful outcome was a closed-mindedness in terms of the integration process and not taking the best of both institutions: It was almost as if there was a concerted effort to disregard all the policies and practices of the USIU side. For example, USIU had an excellent IT system and student records system tied to an automated accounting system that was not utilized and instead both sides suffered. In an ideal merger situation, you want to reap the benefits and best practices of both sides so you can get true synergies. I dont think that happened. I think there were some things that were not as successful as they could have been. Another interviewee agreed that we did not do a good job of blending the cultures together. Another major cultural element that interviewees on both sides mentioned was the name change, which, according to one interviewee, had an echoing effect with alumni and anyone else who strongly identified with either CSPP or USIU. One interviewee summed up the idea of loss: The least successful outcome was the loss of

411

identity and culture that both USIU and CSPP had previously had when they were their own institutions. Culture and identity also was brought up as a positive outcome of the combination. According to one interviewee, The most successful outcome probably has to be the new vision for the university regarding multiculturalism and internationalism and merging those two identities so that now we have a sense of participating in a global vision. Another interviewee said, The blending of missions through I-MERIT was a symbolic milestone for our Institution. Unrealized synergies were brought up by a few interviewees as some of the least successful outcomes: Fundraising and development has not increased as a result of the USIU land acquisition in Scripps Ranch/San Diego. The institutional advancement piece has not materialized, most likely because we dont have a clear, consistent, and distinctive identity that is communicated externally or even internally. That is the most disappointing part because this was probably the biggest reason for the combination in the first place. Some of this is attributed to the leadership in communicating a vision, culture, and identity that inspires people the way the legacy institutions did. There was and, to some extent, continues to be a lack of vision on where the Institution is going. Another interviewee said There are still synergies that we have not realized. We could have become a better version of ourselves. I do not think we did, or are, currently capitalizing or have realized that potential even now. RQ32: What were the most difficult aspects of the merger/acquisition? Many of the interviewees agreed that the culture clash was the most difficult aspect of the merger/acquisition. Specifically, one of the most difficult issues for the faculty was that USIU had a tenure system, and CSPP had a rolling contract system;

412

consequently, merging these two systems was a difficult change process for faculty, particularly for USIU faculty who had achieved tenure and were forced to relinquish it after the merger/acquisition. Another cultural issue that caused friction when the two institutions merged was CSPPs professional school models combining with USIUs traditional university model. USIU had a four-year undergraduate program, while CSPP had stand-alone, professional schools throughout the state of California. An interviewee from USIU said that the most difficult part of the merger/ acquisition was giving up USIU. Another USIU interviewee said that losing USIU was the toughest part. A board member at the time said that: From the Boards perspective, we had to look at the strengths of USIU and the strengths of CSPP, but what I kept hearing from people on both sides was talk only of the weaknesses. So it was difficult to try to appease one side, both sides, either side. It was difficult for CSPP to see how they were going to benefit from this combination and vice versa. The USIU side felt that their name and identity was being taken away from them. Part of it was getting rid of the USIU name, and, from that, comes respect for the people, the alumni, the history, and the legacy. It sort of felt disrespectful. I dont think enough attention was given to those aspects of a merger/acquisition both internally and externally. I dont think enough people were consulted with, asked, listened to, and so forth. There was such a strong belief from the people at the top that they were doing the right thing and making a beneficial decision for and on behalf of everyone. But that is not how things work in an academic institution. Another faculty member stated, Being thrust into this step family scenario without enough planning was difficult. It took several years, but administrative processes are finally smoothing out. Students really used to complain about the problems they were having with financial aid, registration, and other services. Now they have gotten a lot better, more professional, and student-focused. They are moving in the right direction with regards to providing high levels of service. All interviewees agreed that combining the systems, whether they were administrative, financial, database, or people, raised the most difficulty during the merger 413

process. One interviewee felt that, If those things had worked, the cultural issues would have taken care of themselves. To an extent, the cultural issues were included in all of the systems because systems involve people and any issue dealing with culture is because of people. Even the former AIU president agreed that dealing with the cultural differences was the most difficult aspect. Things may have looked one way on paper, but that doesnt tell you about the culture and how the organization works in terms of its people. This made it very difficult to manage. RQ33: What were the least difficult aspects of merger? Most of the interviewees agreed that, for the most part, this merger/acquisition didnt affect what went on in the classroom. Student learning wasnt disrupted and the academic environment basically stayed the same. Another interviewee and former administrator said, We tried really hard to make sure that the students were not impacted. Another faculty member said that, despite all the chaos, We were still able to be effective teachers and colleagues. The former AIU president said that the faculty teaching was one thing that had a relatively seamless integration: Looking back, I liked that I put my confidence in the faculty and let them handle the academic side of the merger. They know what they are doing and take it very seriously. If I had stepped in and tried to intervene rather than let them take responsibility for the programs, this might have backfired and made things worse. (Former CSPP/AIU President, 2009) RQ 34: How do interviewees think faculty, students, staff, and alumni view the outcome/results of merger ten years later? In addition to how the interviewees themselves personally view the outcomes/ results of the merger/acquisition, they were asked how other constituencies, such as

414

faculty, students, staff, and alumni, view the outcomes/results of the merger/acquisition, ten years later. One interviewee said, Its a range. It probably ranges from slightly negative to slightly positive. Most interviewees agree that the new/current students (who were not around during the merger/acquisition) are neutral, and that most alumni view the merger/acquisition negatively, as the institution no longer exists in the form it had when they were attending it. An interviewee, who is also an administrator, feels that most people today have moved on and are past it. Another interviewee said: Its certainly not an issue for current students because most, if not all, of the students that were here during the merger are now gone. Its been about five years since weve mentioned our combination in our welcome letter to new, incoming students because theres no need for it. Nobody is coming here wondering what happened to USIU. They dont care. When we refer to our legacy institutions now, its more like a tribute to our historykind of like the Civil War. I still think its a defining feature about who we are, but I dont think students or staff members feel that way. Faculty members certainly think it is [a defining feature] because most faculty [members] have been here since before the merger/acquisition. There is not a uniform opinion among faculty. I think most people think it is okay now. Theyre not focused on how good or bad the combination is, but rather how good or bad things are right now. Their concerns are: How many students am I supervising for dissertations? Are we going to fill that open position that will lighten my workload? Are we going to get a merit increase? Am I going to get a chance to get promoted or get a sabbatical? Basically all the stuff that faculty anywhere would be concerned about. The only way USIU or CSPP affiliation would enter into the picture is if it affected any of these types of concerns. (CSPP/Alliant Administrator, 2009) It does appear that some people, particularly faculty, from both CSPP and USIU, view the outcome negatively. Several interviewees from CSPP brought up the fact that CSPP now has to subsidize other programs that do not perform as they should. One interviewee stated, The sharing of resources has become a major point of contention. We feel like we are not getting our fair share back from what we put into the pot. So the distribution of resources is and continues to be a major issue. A former dean from USIU 415

said he thought that the USIU side of the house is disappointed to have lost its identity and uniqueness. Another interviewee said that the former USIU and CSPP faculty who remain with Alliant are still feeling the wounds of the merger and may have a hard time committing to Alliant because their commitment still lies with their former institution. The old faculty members have held onto an image of how things used to be. To increase morale, the university has to make them feel better about their work and ensure that their needs are met. There are also outcomes that people on both sides view in a positive light. One interviewee from CSPP stated, We have come a long way. We now own a real campus. We have added breadth to our mission. We have diversified our programs and expanded programs internationally. Another interviewee said, One thing that has resonated with people across programs, departments, and disciplines is the internationalism/ multiculturalism aspect. RQ35: Overall, do the interviewees think the merger was a success? As a follow-up question, interviewees were asked whether they thought the combination of USIU and CSPP was a success overall. The responses ranged from negative to positive. However, most interviewees believed that, overall, the combination was a success, even though not every aspect of the combination was successful. One interviewee said, Not all of the pieces were successful, but overall, the merger/ combination has been fairly successful. People have asked me: Do you think this place is going to make it? And my answer is: Yeah it will make it. It just wont be the place that we knew and loved. The combination has been successful, and I think that the current president is a big reason for that, particularly in his early years when

416

he turned things around and I hope that he continues to do so. (Former USIU Department Chair, 2009). Another interviewee from CSPP stated, I dont think CSPP would have been better off had we not done this merger. USIU definitely would not have been better off alone. A former dean from USIU said, Overall, I would have to say that the combination was a success. The reason is that USIU did not have to close down. Our students continued and many of the USIU faculty members are still there. Another interviewee said, Was it successful? Yes, definitely! Were here. The majority of mergers dont make it, but we did. Another interviewee commented, All in all, the merger was probably successful. The asset base of the combined institution still exists and is better. Another interviewee said, I think, financially, the Institution is better now because of the combined resources, but others may disagree in that not only does success go beyond the bottom line, but also that the bottom line and other aspects could be better than they are. I think the people who feel that they lost something precious that they valued, whether that was their culture, identity, program, prestige, name, or other things do not view the merger as a success. But you also have to think of what the alternative would be. If USIU did not do something it most likely would have had to close. So if keeping your doors open is more important than closing down the Institution, the merger might be viewed as a success. For CSPP, although we were not in financial turmoil like USIU, we still didnt have a lot of resources and assets, like a campus, and we also wanted new programs. So those things were accomplished, but success is difficult to judge on a day-to-day basis and great success cannot be accomplished overnight. While some interviewees view success in terms of access to greater resources, other interviewees viewed it in terms of program quality. One CSPP professor said, Yes, the combination was successful because we were able to maintain a quality program. And now students have access to other programs and disciplines, which I view as positive.

417

This question was difficult for some interviewees to answer definitively whether the combination was indeed a success. For many people, success is not viewed in absolute terms. Some parts were successful while others were not. One interviewee said: Its a qualified success because I would evaluate it as, Can students get a better graduate education now than they could before the combination? And I think the answer to that is yes. In fact, its resoundingly yes. But if I asked that same question about undergraduate students, its resoundingly no. I dont think undergrads get near the quality of education that they got before the combination or that they should be getting. And thats not because people arent working hard enough. Its because we dont have enough students. And making that happen takes really wanting to do it, committing to it, and then dedicating substantial resources to it. So its not the same across the board. Despite the fact that the institution was able to survive, some of the interviewees felt that many of the original aspirations for the merger were never accomplished. One interviewee said, I think the merger was probably a good idea in theory more than anything. Another interviewee observed: I believe that the merger was well intentioned for both institutions and I think the reach and breadth of the University was extended. CSPP/Alliant had not had an international perspective before so this allowed that to happen. A school of education was added and later merged with USIUs school of education so those sides were combined to create programmatic synergy. I do not think that the undergraduate mission and original intents and aspirations were ever realized. It is still an inverted pyramid where the largest numbers of students are graduate students at the doctoral level. I do not think the undergraduate piece ever achieved the original intent. The acquisition of land certainly expanded the resource base of the Institution and it did create some efficiencies. So from that standpoint I think it is probably successful. Whether or not the intent and vision ever resonated with people is probably still in the making. Other interviewees felt that the merger was not a success, at least not yet. An interviewee from CSPP said: Overall, I dont think [the merger] was a success. It still could turn out to be a good thing, but at this point in time I dont view it as an overall success. At this point were still in a rocky financial period and we still havent realized our

418

synergies. Most of the original objectives have not been accomplished. The events of 9/11, which were out of the realm of our control, also played a role in the outcome of success because we were positioned to rely on drawing international students, which was USIUs student base. I think USIU could have found a better merger partner with deeper pockets. They definitely wanted to preserve the mission of the institution which probably would have been compromised no matter what partner they merged with. But they could have picked a partner that would have made substantial capital improvements to their campus. Another interviewee from CSPP also felt that the merger was not a success: I dont think the positive things that have happened since then are a result of the merger. Things such as the emphasis on internationalism/multiculturalism, international programs, and accountability, I feel, would have been done on our own, anyway. I think CSPP is worse off now after the merger than if we would have remained on our own. When Hays was asked whether he believed that the combination was a success, he replied that he couldnt answer in terms of yes or no. He explained: Another way to look at it might be: Would I do it again? And the answer is probably still the same. We looked at a lot of options. We were facing the loss of roughly $1 million a year and needed the financial support of HRS. We had a commitment to do as much as we possibly could do to protect our constituents such as staff and faculty by means of employment, ensure that our students continued their education at the Institution, and preserve the kind of culture that we had at the University. So those were the kinds of things that were driving us to move forward with CSPP. We obviously knew midway through the process that we were combining two vastly different cultures and styles of administrative leadership. As late as the November 7 Board meeting, where it was finally decided to move forward with the Agreement, we had a negotiating session before the Board meeting in order to decide whether or not we should walk away. One of the things we discussed was, Could we get through the next year realizing we had about a million dollar shortfall that we had to deal with and also simultaneously pursue another option? We decided not to risk having to deal with a million dollar shortfall and the uncertainty of continuing in the future. Even though we knew we were dealing with a culture that was significantly different from ours, those things were driving us. We could no longer depend on HRS financially, and we had explored a lot of other options. After considering all the alternatives, we felt that this was the closest we could get to preserving what we had built.

419

RQ36: Were any of the original objectives for the merger/acquisition accomplished? Part of determining whether the combination was successful is evaluating whether the original objectives/goals for the combination were ever achieved. Interviewees were asked which, if any, of the original objectives for the merger/acquisition were accomplished. Hays replied, Most of the objectives we had going into this havent worked out. The Business Program hasnt expanded into those other campus locations. Staff positions had not been saved in some cases. There also havent really been any economies of scale because you still have the central administration headquartered in two locations, San Diego and San Francisco and there is a lot of traveling between the two. Other interviewees had concerns that financial goals were not met and that the university still continues to rely too heavily on tuition for its revenue. Tuition has gone up and continues to go up, so we havent been able to keep our tuition from constantly rising, which was an original stated objective of the merger in that we were too dependent on our own tuition. One interviewee mentioned that the land acquisition of the San Diego campus has not led to as many opportunities as originally hoped. The role of the San Diego campus in the bigger picture of the University has never materialized. We never had the resources to do what we wanted to do in terms of fundraising and getting donors involved, etc. The idea of the undergraduate feeder programs to feed the graduate programs, it seems, has never been realized. The integration that we envisioned does not seem to have taken place. Those of us not in San Diego still do not have a handle on what goes on there. We get emails periodically, but that is about it. It appears that the only real objectives accomplished were the combination of the multicultural and international values, which are now stated explicitly in the universitys

420

mission, and the diversification of programs and disciplines. The financial aspect may have had more success in the beginning of the merger, but budgetary constraints have now presented themselves as a reality to the institution today. The economic recession also has played its role in affecting business as usual at Alliant and all over the world. Looking to the Future RQ37: Where do interviewees see the university in ten years? Interviewees were asked about the potential future of the university and where they see it in ten years. As in the answers to preceding questions, interviewees perceptions of how the university will look and what direction it is taking varied between negative, neutral, and positive. Some interviewees thought that Alliant will continue to make gradual change in a positive direction and will continue to grow. One interviewee said: I see the University ten to twenty-five percent stronger than it is today in all areas. Its going to keep moving ahead slowly. Im optimistic for the future, but not overly optimistic; reasonably optimistic. I think the growth will be slow, but I see it happening. I think were stronger than before in terms of academics, finances, technology, alumni relations, and development and I think this is going to continue. Weve had to watch and manage our resources very carefully. Because of this we can be better positioned in the future, especially in tough economic times. The roads always been bumpy for us so people come to expect it. Another interviewee said, I think that we will be bigger. I think that we are going to acquire other universities and small schools as well as forge new partnerships, strategic alliances, and memorandums of understanding with other institutions. Thats the business model that our competitors are doing right now. But we need to figure out how to do it right.

421

Some interviewees from CSPP believe that the university is trying to be more of a traditional university to compete against more traditional institutions. One interviewee from CSPP stated: I think we are moving towards a more traditional university mindset, which goes against the whole idea behind CSPPs founding, to compete with and put ourselves in the same category as traditional universities and play by their rules. But I think this is the wrong approach and it undermines what makes us unique and special, which is what generally draws people (both students and faculty) to this place. I think the pressure to look like other universities has come into the fold and has compromised both our culture and identity in terms of what makes us proud of this place, and our ability to attract and recruit good students and faculty using our own criteria because there is no way we can compete with those traditional universitieswith their spectacular campuses and facilities, large grants, scholarships, and endowments, and prestigious names and reputations. We simply do not have the finances/resources to win at that game. The more we emphasize evaluating ourselves and doing things like other universities, the less appealing this place is and the less unique it feels instead of capitalizing on what is really special and unique about this place. I think weve lost that sense of distinctiveness in favor of what really counts and how we compare with others rather than on focusing on what makes us stand out: our differences. We are never going to be a research university. We do not bring in money to do that and we will never have the resources to do that like those other universities do. We dont have faculty whose interest is doing that. Instead of cultivating what makes us unique and special, were following the herd. As a result, we are losing and not attracting the kind of faculty members that could really contribute to who we are and what we stand for. For example, people who really love to teach, and who used to be valued and evaluated for their teaching and service, are no longer given promotions because they dont follow the publish or perish doctrine like prominent research universities. If scholarship is not in your repertoire, the University wont even hire you now. So we may end up hiring somebody with an extensive research portfolio, but do not offer the kind of training that our students want and came here for. I dont think we will ever be able to compete on those same criteria as other traditional research universities do. That is just not who we are. Once we became a university, rather than view ourselves as independent schools, it seems like we evaluate the Institution as a whole in comparison with other universities. We are not like any other university so we shouldnt evaluate ourselves like we are one of them.

422

This reflects the values of the leadership and what they consider to be important, rather than on the overarching mission of the Institution. Leaders, especially those in top administrative positions, come and go. Therefore we cannot simply adhere to whatever values the leader has at any given time otherwise we would bounce around with no real sense of direction, identity, vision, or purpose. A vision can start with one person, but it is carried out through the long-time members and generations of people who make up that Institution. It is something that stands the test of time and provides stability and a sense of purpose to members of the Institution, both short- and long-term. Several interviewees speculated that the university will start to incorporate more advanced technology, such as online teaching and e-learning, as a way to stay competitive (CSPP/Alliant Administrator, 2009). As one interviewee said: I suspect everything over the next ten years will become more online or at least hybrid versions. I just cant imagine not moving in the same direction as all other institutions. Online would be good because then we wouldnt need all those campus locations, which is costly. At the same time, going online requires major resources and methodology so Im not sure we can go in that direction adequately at this point. But if youre not that then who are you? We still need to figure that out. Another interviewee said that the university needs to put more doctoral programs online because it is the future of higher education. In addition to incorporating advances in technology, some interviewees thought that perhaps certain age groups and demographics will be targeted for recruitment, including up-and-coming student populations such as the baby boomer generation, and creating lifelong/extended learning programs to cater to this niche market, which have recently started to take root at other various colleges and universities. There is a huge market and will continue to be a huge market in the aging population. There is a revival happening with people who are retirement age and grew up in the 1960s and who yearn for a sense of community that they felt during that period. Conversations always go to education and a kind of spirituality that people from that generation have felt they lost; so maybe something to the tune of integrating spirituality (non-religious-based) and

423

knowledge. Theres going to be a whole new wave of learning and somebodys going to capture that. Somebody has to target the over-60 population. Other interviewees felt that Alliant will be an evermore preeminent graduate institution. One interviewee said, We will be a great place to go to graduate school because we will have what we have now and probably a little more of the kind of service and service-minded people working with students and with faculty. Some interviewees believed that other graduate disciplines will be added to the portfolio such nursing. This has already occurred, as Alliant has acquired the San Francisco Law School. In addition to expanding programs, some interviewees also think that attaining specialized accreditations and certificate programs in various disciplines will also become more paramount which is and continues to be a major endeavor across programs in the University, especially in regards to maintaining a professional practice model. Another interviewee stated that he didnt think much radical change had occurred since the merger, but that was a positive thing because the Institution needed time to digest, understand what happened, and grow into those changes before moving on to a whole other situation. He later commented that he hoped Alliant would again in the future make radical change to stay competitive while another interviewee said, Hopefully in ten years Alliant can be at the forefront of certain changes in society. RQ38: Where would interviewees like the university to be in ten years? In addition to the question regarding where interviewees think the university will be in ten years, they also were asked where they would like to see the university in ten years to get an idea for the interviewees aspirations for the university. Some

424

interviewees would like to see the university more solidified in terms of its mission and vision. One interviewee said: I would like to see our mission and vision realized; that we are truly a professional practice, I-MERIT-driven university that is known and respected internationally, as shown through us being able to market our distinctive identity. What I mean by professional practice is preparing students for professional careers and jobs. This means that we have to have strong ties in the communities we serve. Another interviewee wanted the university to be on solid financial ground, while other interviewees focused on aspects like competitive advantage. One interviewee said: I want us to be a player. I want us to have the recognition for the quality and innovation I know we have. Were such an adaptable organization, so much more so than other universities. But we havent figured out how to capitalize on that. I want us to be well-recognized and generally content as an organization. I want folks to be content to come to work. I want them to be pleased that they work here. I want the students to be proud that they go here. I want this to be the place of first choice. I want us to be able to provide an economically reasonable education that doesnt put students in debt. Id love for us to figure out how we can maximize external funding so our students dont leave with debt. I want us to be different from the rest. (USIU/Alliant General Counsel, 2009) Other interviewees also wanted to see Alliant have competitive advantage in terms of program quality and distinction: Ideally, Id like us to be known as not only one of the best programs in the country, but also as the leader in certain things like training cultural minority students. I dont just want us to be another really good graduate school. Instead, I want us to be known for being the best in certain things and have a niche in the marketplace by being distinct. Sometimes a lot of it comes down to money and top administration is always looking for new funding sources, grants, and market opportunities. I think a much better job needs to be done in these areas as well as public relations. Top administration needs to be supportive in developing new programs and engaging the faculty. Im very proud of the faculty who are coming up with ideas about developing new programs to meet a changing world. I think we really have the potential to become a leader. We just need more resources to

425

do so and more creative people who can get us those resources. (CSPP Faculty Member & Program Director, 2009) Another interviewee said: I want us to be the premier place to go for practitioners. Graduates need to be well-trained for the professions they are going into. This means we have to be attuned to the real world. This also means that we have to compete in the marketplace of ideas and the marketplace of ideas means not just having an idea, but also being in the game of publishing, research, teaching, and service and that has been a light side for both USIU and CSPP. We do enough to get by and we do have some premier researchers here. By research I mean professional scholarship that builds institutional reputation. But we havent been playing that game in the sense that we are expecting our faculty and students to do research and service that helps change the world. The game of academic stature is based primarily in scholarship. We basically need to document what we do and get it in print. All this takes work and time and effort and money. We have the baby seeds planted in some of these areas, but they now have to blossom and grow. Institutions of higher learning are always evolving because knowledge is constantly evolving and so we must evolve with it as well as differentiate in how we deliver it. (CSPP/Alliant Faculty Member, 2009) Other interviewees talked about wanting to see expansion, especially with some of the newer and lesser-known schools and programs: I hope the other schools continue to grow so that everybody is pulling their appropriate weight while having the highest quality programs we can. I hope Alliant will have more credibility that will improve over time. Alliant needs to have its own identity with credibility attached to it. Where we already have credibility should then be associated with Alliant. We should not be functioning independently. This will require more of a team effort (CSPP Professor, 2009). Another interviewee said: I would like us to have 500 undergraduates and an online arm for the programs in addition to on-ground. Id like us to be very well-known up and down the state of California so that when you talk to someone and you say, Alliant, that they wont say, Whats Alliant? Some interviewees talked about conceptualizing and actualizing the institutional identity. I want us to figure out who we were when we were at our best and revitalize that. We need to focus and capitalize on our strengths and what makes us different rather than the same. We dont get asked that question. Instead we are being told

426

to do certain things so that we will look better to outside institutions, accrediting bodies, professional associations, etc. As a result, we have lost some of our uniqueness and special-ness over the years following the combination. This does not serve the students or the faculty or the alums who are our most important and relevant stakeholders. The more we try to look like every other university, the more we get away from what makes us distinct and extraordinary which, in my opinion, are our selling points. So if somebody asks, Why should I pick you over them? it gets harder to answer that question. (CSPP Professor and Former CSPP/AIU Board Member, 2009) RQ 39: What planning mechanisms are currently in place to reach these goals? Strategic planning is a necessity to achieving goals. Therefore, interviewees were asked what strategic planning mechanisms are in place at the university to reach the goals that were set. Several interviewees mentioned the all-faculty conference, where faculty from all the campuses get together about once a year to make plans and set goals for the future, both short- and long-term. That then carries over during the year to regularly scheduled faculty meetings and committees. In addition, a Steering Committee at the top administration level as well as the dean level sets goals, makes plans, and offers solutions. For example, the undergraduate programs, which were previously housed together as the Center for Undergraduate Education, have been reorganized under the various graduate schools and programs instead of having them operate separately. RQ40: What planning mechanisms should be in place to reach these goals? Interviewees were then asked what strategic planning mechanisms should be in place to reach some of the goals and aspirations of the university. Several interviewees stated that not nearly enough time is spent on strategic planning, especially at the board level. One board member and top administrator said: We spend too much time on our systems and not enough time on just thinking and brainstorming. Were always trying to solve problems and put out fires. Id love to see much more of a strategic planning process put in place and a total buy-in by 427

all senior management in the importance of strategic planning and continue to get the Board even more engaged. I think the Board members genuinely want to be involved and want meet in a setting other than a business meeting, like a retreat to throw around ideas and strategize and really utilize the people on the Board because theres a lot of them who have some great ideas and a lot to contribute much more than they already do. People can be on all kinds of boards, but they want to be on Alliants Board and, to me, that says something. We also should take more advantage of the structure and the fact that students and faculty have a voice on the Board. I think that when we talk about our Board and its role in developing the University, it is important to include those in the functional positions, especially after Show Cause. But now were in a different place and, yes, we still need to have the internal controls, but now its time to start being visionary. The Board continues to be interested in the Presidents vision, but theres no real dynamic interaction right now to help build that vision. So figuring out how to do that is important. Another interviewee said: We only do planning when we get into crisis. I would like to see a focus on strategic planning that is facilitated by senior administration, but that is schoolbased and is small, agile, and ongoing. So it would be a group of people from all the schools who would meet on a semi-regular basis to scan the environment in their discipline and in their area to understand how to be more competitive over the next five years. One category would be curriculum; another category would be facilities; another category would be technology; and another category would be program shape and type (i.e., online, classroom, hybrid). Those are conversations that, to me, should be ongoing, collaborative, and cut across disciplines. The Steering Committee tends to be consumed by quarter-to-quarter kinds of issues. To the extent that I know of, they dont seem to be focused on the longer-term. Maybe they could be or maybe they would be if they had some other mechanisms in place to help make that happen, but they dont as far as I know. Another interviewee said that the university does planning when it comes to cutting costs and budgetary planning, but thats not the same thing as strategic planning because it doesnt really link up with a vision, is not long-term, and does not look at the competition. We really need to look at what our competitors are doing. Another interviewee talked about strategic planning as it pertains to taking business risks and making change:

428

I think Alliants capacity to move toward risk and innovation has been somewhat compromised as a result of the merger, mainly because this was the last big risk that was taken and we almost didnt make it. That took its toll on people and has resulted in the University being more conservative as far as any radical bold moves in the last few years. When CSPP was founded it was completely original, but these days there is much more competition so you need to reinvent yourself. Ultimately the merger helped both institutions reinvent themselves. When people from CSPP are resistant to change it always baffles me because that was why CSPP was founded: to make the change that no one else, at the time, wanted to do. Our fastest growing program in recent years has been forensic psychology because it is a new and growing area. It is harder to do the same thing in a well-established area like clinical psychology. The point is, even radical institutions get to the point where they become conservative so the trick is to take well calculated risks in areas that have potential to succeed. As time goes by, I think people will become more willing to take necessary risks to stay competitive. We are not there yet though in terms of radical risk taking. We are more focused on improving what we have rather than starting areas that are completely new. We are an older institution now than we used to be, and as people get older they tend to get more conservative. We have a lot of people who have been here for 30 years or more. I do think people here are more willing to work together cooperatively, which is a big plus. You have to be able to cultivate an excitement over new knowledge and the future while at the same time preserving what is valued and sustainable. For this Institution to thrive, it has to run the organization in the day to day while simultaneously pushing it forward in its radical edge. What makes this place what it has become today is the willingness to take risks and tackle social problems that are important and exciting to address. We need to have that passion. What draws people here is the idea of the place. As long as the idea of the place is at the forefront of what we do then we will continue to succeed; interesting people doing interesting things that they care about. But that passion has to be coupled with the realities of competing in todays marketplace. (CSPP/Alliant Professor, 2009) RQ41: Do interviewees think there will be more college and university mergers/acquisitions in the future? Interviewees were asked whether they believe that there will likely be more college and university mergers and acquisitions in the future. A majority of the interviewees agreed that there will indeed be more college and university M&As,

429

especially as the environment of higher education changes, as resources become more strained, and as the economic recession takes its toll on institutions. One interviewee said that he thought there would be fewer traditional universities, and, for those who dont move with the changes, the universities will cease to exist. Institutions are going to have to change, and one way to change is through merger or acquisition. In any case, were going to see a lot more change. Another interviewee, who also agreed that there would be more higher education mergers and acquisitions, said that he read an article recently that predicted more small private colleges and universities, especially in rural areas, to become acquired, merged, or dissolved altogether. In the best of economic times, its tough enough for these kinds of colleges to raise money and to attract students (Hays, 2009). Even if institutions dont merge or acquire, some of the interviewees thought that, at the very least, colleges and universities will share resources such as technology, libraries, and services, like the Claremont Schools. One interviewee said that he thought the small struggling institutions wont be able to survive because they wont be able raise tuition fast enough to keep up with their rising costs: The [institutions] who are surviving are those that merge or re-invent themselves. Many will combine to survive and people will get better at doing it as it proves to be a successful strategy to growth and survival. Another interviewee agreed that M&As will be important to the future of higher education, even to Alliant: The [Alliant] President is very keen on creating new partnerships to build the University. I think well do a better job than we did before because we have the opportunity to learn from ourselves. The Presidents vision is to house

430

autonomous professional schools under a university umbrella with centralized services that we have determined are important to be centralized. So now we are trying to figure out exactly what those services are and entail (i.e., admissions, marketing, fundraising, etc.). (USIU/Alliant General Counsel, 2009) Many of the interviewees also agreed that, if an organization wants to incorporate certain enhancements, such as online classes, its almost a better business proposition to acquire that capability than it is to invent it internally. A former business school dean believes that the wave of the future is the model of for-profits gobbling up struggling colleges and taking them online. The former CSPP/AIU president remarked, In tough economic times, mergers/acquisitions are seen as one strategy to continue. The universities and colleges most susceptible to mergers and acquisitions are small, private colleges. Mergers are also the most difficult for these kinds of institutions because they have such strong cultures and identities, and they do not want to give these up. Students Thoughts Although the main source of data in this study was collected via interviews with decision makers throughout the university, several students who were present during the merger gave their thoughts via an online survey. The majority of students who participated in the survey were adamantly opposed to the combination and identified strongly with either USIU or CSPP. One student even referred to the merger as The Dark Times of AIU (Alliant online survey, 2009). Another student from USIU commented, The entire mood of the campus changed. USIU felt like it was being colonized. It was a scary time filled with uncertainty (Alliant online survey, 2009). Another former USIU student had this to say: I feel that when we merged the University lost its focus, and I believe that is partly due to the name. USIU said a lot! Many international students often seek a

431

degree from a U.S. school. The U.S. of USIU spelled this. The IU of USIU said that its a University with a large and diverse student body that prepares students for work in an international environment. To me, AIU did not say this. USIU made you feel like part of a family, and I just didnt have the same feeling with AIU. Another student, who was in her third year at USIU when the merger occurred, noted: It was terrible. Everything was kept very hush-hush until one day we were told we were no longer USIU. By the end of my senior year, friends who were very involved with USIU student activities dropped out of groups and pretty much didn't care what happened to AIU. Many of us felt completely betrayed by the university, and were very concerned with the ramifications of having a degree from a school that no longer existed, and/or a degree from a school we didn't apply to or care about. (We had the option of choosing AIU or USIU on our diplomas.) We stayed USIU until the end, and anything having to do with AIU was ignored. Many people just quit caring at that point, not just about their groups and organizations, but their classes and grades as well, since no one knew what the benefit of having a degree from AIU or USIU would mean. We lost our identity and couldn't identify with the new order. Another student from the USIU Mexico City campus who was there during the merger stated: No one was happy with the change. One moment we were all USIU. We loved our school, our school name, our spirit, our history. After the merger, we felt like orphans. Changing the name from USIU to AIU affected our established reputation in Mexico City. Many students were attracted to USIU because of the uniqueness of its name and being an American university in Mexico. After the merger, the university had to start over to rebrand its new name. On our campus there were rumors that the transaction of the merger had been dodgy, so this left us worried as to what would happen with the university, its reputation, and how much of a future our campus really had. Even though I was only under USIU for one year, it felt like I attended two separate universities. A CSPP student who was there during the merger said: I was very disappointed in the whole process. There was definitely a loss in identity. I can't stand the new name. I know that some students petitioned for additional options to be considered. Administration agreed to have options submitted, but I don't feel that they were seriously considered. Additionally, we lost numerous excellent instructors during the merger and shortly thereafter due to the politics, which was very sad and disappointing.

432

A USIU student described the culture during the merger as being . . . a time of fear, endings and low morale from all who had been part of the USIU campus community (Alliant online survey, 2009). Another CSPP student described the culture after the merger as . . . focused more on being able to pay the bills and increase class sizes; faculty had less time for students; more chaotic, and more rumors because of missing communication flow (Alliant online survey, 2009). Yet another CSPP student described the culture after the merger as being in turmoil: It was like we were all struggling with the formation of a new shared identity. Morale was low as the facilities were viewed as a step down from what we had previously been used to (Alliant online survey, 2009). A student from USIU had this to say about the culture after the merger: After the merger there was change. What was once a tight-knit group was still a tight-knit group, only one [side] was CSPP and the other [side] was USIU. I felt like there was no effort to try to integrate the students. It was a period of time when everything felt uncertain and we didn't know how the administration would react and change. I loved attending USIU. I had the choice of USIU or Alliant on my undergrad diploma and I chose USIU. That name was why I started at the school and I felt like that was something I wasn't willing to give up. It was strange the loyalty I felt for USIU, and I feel that the students I graduated with felt the same, (Alliant online survey, 2009)

433

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Interviewees were asked what lessons they learned from this merger/acquisition experience. The answers were then grouped. The following section describes the lessons learned from this case. Lessons Learned 1. Lack of experience with mergers/acquisitions internally as well as the decision not to use internal or external expertise and consultation (both internally and externally) resulted in poor implementation. It appears that, when the merger began, neither partner had previous experience with implementing mergers or acquisitions, particularly at the top administration level. It was also apparent that those who did have experience with mergers/acquisitions, such as faculty, were not consulted or utilized in the implementation process. Consultants also were never brought in to assist with the process. As one interviewee put it, We, being the university, were novices in the whole merger/acquisition arena, and the President and the Presidents Cabinet chose not to reach out to faculty who may have had that expertise for assistance. Not using faculty who had experience with mergers and acquisitions was mentioned by several interviewees. They (top administration) didnt make use of the resources that were within the university, such as faculty in organizational psychology and business (CSPP Professor and former CSPP/AIU Board Member, 2009). Because faculty were not consulted or utilized internally in the merger process, the former

434

president said that she now wishes she would have spent more time listening to people and including them in the process. Mergers/acquisitions in higher education often occur because resources are strained, and combining with another institution will aid in economies of scale. However, one expense incurred when implementing a merger/acquisition is the hiring or acquiring of the expertise needed. This cost should, therefore, be factored into the overall cost of the merger/acquisition. Whether it was because resources were already too strained or because the importance of bringing in expertise was undermined, one of the key lessons learned from this case was that an organization should obtain the expertise consultation needed to implement successful merger integration. One interviewee said that this was a major flaw and the reason it was not successful in the beginning: I think we should have gotten help. I think we should have found a person or a firm to help us manage this process because we have demonstrated that we couldnt do it well. It didnt kill us, but it almost did. We should have used consultation where we really needed it. Thats one thing that I wish we would have done differently, and I would certainly advise someone whos entering a merger to do so. Yes, it costs money, but it cant cost anywhere near as much money as we wasted. (Former CSPP/AIU Administrator, 2009) Another interviewee stated, One of the biggest lessons I learned was that it is vital to have the resources to hire the expertise needed for mergers. We needed the expertise of merger specialists (former CSPP/AIU President, 2009). Another interviewee said: It appears that we had very little resources and help with the merger process. Companies that are successful with M&As either develop that expertise internally or get that expertise externally and put a lot of energy and resources into it because it is such a complex endeavor and it needs to be done properly. [The integration process] appeared to be done in a very haphazard fashion, which is not surprising, since we didnt have that competency.

435

The president, top administration, and board of trustees did not have the expertise to execute a merger, nor did they ask for help or consult with internal or external experts. The university has approximately 40 faculty members in the organizational program across the campuses who have experience not only in mergers and acquisitions, but also in organizational change management and organizational culture; unfortunately, they were not consulted. It was a mistake not to involve other campuses in the USIU-CSPP/Alliant University merger/acquisition in the integration efforts because it resulted in delayed system-wide university integration. Instead, they chose to manage the merger/acquisition locally, only on the San Diego campus, because that is where the physical merger took place. Integrations need to be done at a fairly rapid, continuous pace right from the beginning. Extending/stretching/dragging it out and prolonging the integration is very ineffective, costly, and the effects and repercussions still exist around that. It only prolongs a full integration, which, ultimately, is supposed to be the goal and the original purpose for the combination in the first place. The speed of integration and the lack of knowledge, capability, and competency on how to do it undermined its effectiveness. Companies in the Bay Area, for example, like Cisco and Oracle, are avid acquirers. Oracle recently acquired Sun Microsystems, which is a pretty big acquisition. They acquired People Soft a few years ago and they have often acquired pretty good-sized companies in the last 7-10 years. Cisco has done the same with acquiring small and large companies. During the years that theyve been doing this, theyve developed a pretty good capability in terms of their acquisition management system. Both organizations do it differently according to their cultures. They have an internal group that specializes in the M&A integration because its part of their business model. So they have developed that capability and they have resources dedicated to it. The companies that do this well have people fully dedicated to this as an assignment for some period of time, so theyre not doing it as a second job. In a merger of equals you would need to establish a new leadership team, so this integration team would still be operating, but it would be reporting to the new CEO, CFO, CIO, etc. So theres an ad hoc infrastructure that is put in place to lead and manage the integration. What Oracle and Cisco and other companies have done is create a methodology for themselves on how to integrate their acquired entities. Because we didnt create an infrastructure, the whole thing floundered. (CSPP/Alliant Faculty Member/Program Director, 2009)

436

Another CSPP faculty member said that, if the university had sought consultation from professionals with merger/acquisition implementation expertise, the university would be in a much better place today (Alliant online survey, 2009). Getting help from experts in the merger/acquisition field will aid in a much smoother transition and implementation than attempting to do it alone. Even if it would be too costly to hire outside consultants, colleges and universities that undergo a merger or acquisition should at least use what resources they do have, such as staff and faculty, to help coordinate and lead an integration team so that no one loses sight of the goals, plans, and outcomes of the merger/acquisition 2. Did not dedicate adequate time and resources needed to plan, prepare, and execute the transition and implementation. All of the interviewees agreed that not enough time and resources were allocated to plan, prepare, and execute the merger implementation. In the words of one interviewee, it is better to take the necessary time needed to plan accordingly rather than rush to implement things right away. That was one of the harder lessons we had to learn (USIU Department Chair, 2009). Another interviewee, who teaches courses in change management, stated, They should have given more time to plan, involved faculty, and given time to unfreeze. There really was no formal transition, at least on the campus level. It was just decision: change (USIU/Alliant, Faculty Member/Former Alliant Board Member, 2009). Another interviewee, who is a faculty member in organizational psychology and who has experience working with organizations involved in M&As, said

437

that he thought the Alliant combination was executed in a fairly sloppy way. He went on to say: Companies that merge or acquire typically have an integration team. After the merger/acquisition deal has been finalized and they are moving forward, an integration team is formed comprised of senior leaders of the two entities coming together. That team is charged with overseeing the whole process of transition and integration. Underneath them are a variety of work groups or teams that are usually functional or discipline-based because you have to merge the finances and the IT systems and the human resource practices and policies. There are a lot of decisions made around which benefit plan to use, etc. There is basically an ad hoc organization that is created to execute the integration. (CSPP/Alliant Faculty Member and Program Director, 2009) Because the process of merging of systems and people was not allocated adequate time and resources, ultimately the ones that suffered were the customers (students). One interviewee said, I think if we worked more on the transition, we could have avoided a lot of the pain; Im talking mostly of the pain for students. I dealt with hundreds of upset students. We should have been able to do this in a way that was much more transparent for students. (CSPP/Alliant Administrator, 2009) Another interviewee agreed that not much pre-merger planning had been done, which was shown in the results. The results show that we didnt plan well going into the merger (CSPP Faculty Member and Program Director, 2009). Another interviewee stated, You really need to have things planned in advance, and it seemed like we tried to wing it along the way (CSPP/Alliant Professor, 2009). It is apparent that the university leadership did not plan sufficiently for the integration and was, therefore, unprepared to lead or manage the aftermath of the combination, which resulted in negative outcomes. Taking the time to plan a merger or acquisition is vital to its success. It cannot be emphasized enough that the deal on paper

438

is just step one of the process, and the real work begins after the deal is signed. As mentioned previously, an integration team needs to be put in place to carry out the transition and implementation. All the work that goes into this effort needs to be preplanned and documented, and resources need to be allocated to it. 3. Did not apply change theory and did not have effective change leadership/management in place. Any merger/acquisition, and, indeed, any major change initiative, is successful only if effective change management is leading the change effort. According to one interviewee, who is a professor of leadership and change management, this merger/acquisition: violated all the fundamentals of change theory (preparing for change, unfreezing the situation, communication, education, involvement); that didnt happen prior to the change. It happened after the change and was less than successful because people felt that they were coerced into the change by both sides. There was a little bit of hard feelings, to say the least. They violated all the rules for overcoming resistance to change. I teach management of change and leadership and the President and Administration violated all the rules. They also didnt communicate regularly enough, other than initially. The lesson that Ive taken from it is all about leadership; that unless you have a real leader in the truest sense of the word then the organization is not going to succeed. In a merger/ acquisition situation the leader is pivotal. And we have had a very good negative example with our past president and a very positive example with our current president. So leadership stands out as a big take-away lesson from this. (USIU/Alliant Faculty Member/Former Alliant Board Member, 2009) Another interviewee said: Change requires an engagement with individuals. You need to have clarity of purpose and clarity of strategy. Making the decision to merge is really just the first step. It is really about understanding and transforming culture. It has to be intentional. It has to be steadfast. Culture just takes time. Changing the culture is a very time intensive, deliberate process and it doesnt happen overnight. (Former AIU Provost, 2009)

439

Galpin and Herndon (2007) stated that: Poor handling of change dynamics during integration is a principal reason why many M&As fail. Because merger creates significant change-management issues, actions aimed at integration should help mitigate the risks and stack the odds in favor of making the deal work (p. 58). The authors further stated that: In any change effort, leadership is important in providing clear direction for the move into an uncertain future. Unless a specific person is accountable for the projects success, the effort will be stymied by delays, false starts, and overwhelming confusion. (p. 64) The M&A literature, particularly in the for-profit sector, stresses the importance of creating fast, widespread change in the beginning of a merger or acquisition so that the new organization is able to move forward. In contrast, higher education institutions have traditionally adapted to change at a very slow pace, and it is difficult to implement such drastic change in institutions whose shared governance systems and faculty are openly able to oppose change. Nonetheless, it is vital to apply change leadership and management during radical change and to communicate what it means for all involved. 4. Did not finish the first project/reorganization before moving on to the next. CSPPs reorganization of its campuses was not yet complete when the merger/acquisition took place. One interviewee said: There wasnt stability in the acquiring entity [CSPP]. The CSPP reorganization that preceded the merger/acquisition hadnt been completed yet. There was a wide-scale effort to consolidate the CSPP campuses into a system. Quickly thereafter CSPP acquired U.S. International University before the first reorganization was far enough along. I wouldnt say complete because it was not even close to that point. So part of the difficulty in accepting the merger/acquisition was because CSPP was still developing itself as a system. Before the President came in, CSPP was a confederation, at best, of independently operated and autonomous campuses.

440

Because the CSPP reorganization was not yet mature, the entity that was acquiring U.S. International University was not a single entity. It wasnt a welldeveloped organizational system of its own to then take on or take in another entity into the mix. It wasnt like we (CSPP/Alliant University) were a fully integrated entity that was now acquiring another one. So the acquisition was being brought in to a considerably chaotic and unstable organizational state. You shouldnt move towards another integration or merger until you are finished with the first integration and it is fully implemented. Its very hard to create a new entity when the acquiring entity is unstable and in chaos. (CSPP/Alliant Faculty Member/Program Director, 2009) This state of ongoing change with CSPP was difficult on its organizational members. One interviewee said: It was hard enough trying to merge these four CSPP campuses, which are all part of the same institution and have the same programs in the same field/profession. When you try to then merge a whole different institution, USIU, and a different kind of institution with undergrad and multiple departments and disciplines and a campus and everything else, its like a perfect recipe for disaster. So its hard enough trying to merge campuses with similarities and commonalities, let alone adding a completely different animal into the mix. When the merger/acquisition occurred, it completely shattered CSPPs plan and efforts of integrating the campuses into a university system. We became sidetracked from implementing this plan to then dealing with merging with/acquiring another university. The merger/acquisition shifted the focus away from the integration efforts that were underway. Before the merger/acquisition, there was already a tension, excitement, and fear about integrating the campuses, and since universities are characterized as slow-moving organizations, much time is usually given for people to adjust to major change, such as a systematizing effort. So before the merger presented itself, there was both uncertainty and excitement about this new university system. (Former CSPP/AIU Senior VP, 2009) Another interviewee noted that many of the CSPP faculty members were already resistant to reorganizing from an autonomous campus to a university system; consequently, by the time CSPP/Alliant University decided to combine with USIU, the new merger/acquisition added to an already complex situation, making the integration even more challenging (USIU/Alliant General Counsel, 2009). Too much

441

reorganization is not only psychologically difficult for an organizations members, it also violates change theory in not allowing the freeze process to take place before another change is implemented, making the organization appear unstable and uncommitted to its current projects. Change is inevitable in every organization, but too much change too quickly can backfire as members are pulled in various, and sometimes competing, directions to move the organization forward. 5. Lack of clarity behind the term combination used to describe the acquisition. Even though the terms merger and acquisition are used frequently in this study, these terms were not used to communicate CSPP and USIUs coming together. Instead, the word combination was used to describe the new, joined university. It is not clear why the decision was made to deliberately not use merger or acquisition, but many speculate that combination was used because it implied a joining together of equals, as opposed to a takeover. Others believed that combination was used instead of words used in the business world because this was a university setting. However, the meaning behind combination was uncertain, and this translated to peoples working side by side without knowing who had authority. One interviewee said: I dont believe something called a combination works. Its just not clear. For example, the VP for Enrollment and Student Services in San Francisco, who came from CSPP, and the VP for Enrollment and Student Services in San Diego, who came from USIU, just worked beside each other. They didnt give one authority over the other. They didnt clarify who reports to whom. So from Day 1, things did not look good. We did all the things you are not supposed to do in mergers, despite what is written in the literature on what not to do. Some interviewees said they would have preferred to know that the combination was really an acquisition:

442

The whole idea of calling it a combination instead of calling it what it really wasan acquisitionwas the wrong move. Maybe if we were honest about what this really was, people would have been able to come to terms with the reality of it, have some closure, and move forward with something new, rather than pretending to be more of the same because we were afraid we would shock and upset people if we make too much drastic change all at once. That falls under transparency and accountability. It would have made a huge difference in the beginning if people were told the truth. (Former CSPP/AIU Senior VP, 2009) Another interviewee said that the term combination was problematic in the language. It was described as a merger, but it acted like an acquisition and, legally, it was an acquisition. One interviewee stated: We never called it an acquisition. We called it a combination. That was one of the huge shortcomings. We never explicitly said that CSPP was taking over USIU. We couldnt bring ourselves to do that. People would act like it, but we wouldnt say it. This caused a lot of difficulty because nobody knew who was in charge. Nobody knew whose rules were supposed to take precedent. So the cognitive dissonance and discontent was substantial. This also kept our focus away from creating a culture, an Alliant culture, but we needed someone to be driving that, and instead we got pandemonium. We didnt ever really focus on culture until after the WASC sanction. (CSPP/Alliant Administrator, 2009) Another interviewee said that using combination was also inaccurate because it wasnt just two universities combining, but rather it was one university (with several campuses) and several stand-alone professional schools, as the CSPP reorganization was not yet complete. One administrator said she felt as though it was a merger of six institutions rather than two. Some from USIU also felt that combination was misleading. It was called a combination to make it as agreeable as possible, but it was really a sell-out. CSPPs board took over, and their leadership took over (former USIU/AIU Dean, 2009). Another interviewee said, It was a takeover. The term combination was used to make

443

it sound more palatable to the USIU side so that it wouldnt look so uneven (USIU Department Chair, 2009). The former CSPP/AIU president noted, We called it a combination because we thought it would sit well with people and make it feel like a partnership rather than a takeover and because we wanted to respect the legacy of both institutions. However, this ended up causing damage and confusion as to who was in charge, especially in terms of jobs and responsibilities.
Even though the intentions might have been to keep the peace and respect the acquired institution, using combination to describe the process was ambiguous and caused confusion for people, especially in terms of how the implementation would be carried out. The organizational structure became unclear as to who was in charge of whom, and many jobs and responsibilities overlapped. Redundancy and inefficiency ensued. Many interviewees thought that, if the acquisition were made clear from the beginning, it would have been difficult at first, but processes would have been more transparent, and many problems could have been avoided. Transparency is a highly regarded value, especially in institutions of higher education, and people want to know the truth of the circumstances they are in. They do not want their leaders to sugar coat the reality. For the most part, people want their leaders to be straightforward and tell them what is really going on, even if it is not good news. Further, any time a leader or group of leaders tries to hide or spin the truth, the potential for a loss of trust and faith is likely. Good leaders are trusted by their followers, and followers trust their leader, in part, because he or she is honest. Honesty and transparency are essential elements of effective leadership. Good leadership starts with trust.

444

6. Not enough communication (both internally and externally). It was reported by many of the interviewees that there was not enough communication, both within the university and to the broader community, regarding the merger/acquisition as well as what it meant for the people involved, both locally on the San Diego campus and system-wide for the whole university (on all of the campuses). One interviewee from the San Francisco campus said: Communication was infrequent or at least not frequent enough in terms of informing people about what was going on. There was communication, but it didnt address a lot of the key issues. One of the key issues it didnt address for a long time was How is this going to affect you? For example, people on the San Francisco campus felt like they were watching it from a distance, since the actual integration was mostly happening in San Diego. It wasnt until a few years later that some of the implications began to get talked about. Another interviewee stated: There was never adequate communication, inclusion, and integration around how [the merger/acquisition was] going to affect the other campuses other than San Diego. There was no notification or discussion as to how that [was] going to occur. It was all based on what was taking place in San Diego. Faculty [from the other campuses] were actually receptive to the idea that we would have a captive undergraduate population that could then feed the graduate schools, although, outside of San Diego, we were not sure as to how we were going to benefit from that. The only campus that was directly affected, it appeared, was San Diego. The rest of us were pretty distant from it. We had no impact and we didnt see anything being done integration-wise that made us a part of that process. Instead, it was based on geography. People didnt pay all that much attention, since whatever was happening was happening in San Diego. It wasnt until the subsequent President stepped in that we were even updated on what was going on in San Diego. Daniel and Metcalf (2001, p. 149) list some general tips for a successful communication program:

445

a. Communicate rapidly, honestly, and frequently. b. Consistency will generate credibility, so say what you are going to do and then do it! c. Establish multiple routes of communication to reach people (e.g., one-on-one meetings, group sessions, newsletters, bulletin postings, email updates, etc.) d. Focus on themes of change and progress by highlighting projects that are going right and action items that are being delivered on time. e. Repeat the common themes of the merger or acquisition to increase understanding of the rationale behind the transaction. f. Share information widely and frequently. g. Provide opportunities for involvement and feedback. h. Promise that there will be problems, but provide a commitment that they will be identified and addressed as early as possible. Galpin and Herndon (2007) discussed the importance of rumor control during organizational change: To beat the grapevine, especially during an M&A transaction, top managers need to use communication effectively so that rumors do not become the main source of information (p. 117). Further, these authors stated, Effective communication should be made a priority, and all messages should be linked to the strategic objectives of the integration effort. All communication must be honest. All messages should be consistent, and they should be repeated through various channels (p. 119). The institution also needs to establish mechanisms for two-way feedback (p. 120).

446

Communication is essential to any major part of any organizational change, particularly a merger/acquisition. Even if the physical merger is taking place elsewhere, it still affects the entire organization, and, as such, regular and frequent communication must be made. Another interviewee said: You have to make the implications of the merger/acquisition apparent to all those in the organization because they, in fact, are the organization and will be the ones executing that implementation and they are the ones who are most affected by those changes. You need to engage everyone because ultimately it will affect everyone. You have to prepare people and create readiness. It is, therefore, vital to ensure that all stakeholder groups, both internally and externally, are informed of the changes that are taking place. 7. Alumni as a university constituency and stakeholder group were not properly addressed or engaged. As one interviewee mentioned, Alumni as a constituency and stakeholder group were left out of [the] merger endeavor. A key group of customers, alumni, whom most institutions look to for support and direction, were not properly addressed or engaged in the merger/acquisition process. One faculty member said that he received several phone calls from alumni who were asking such questions as, Is my degree still good? There is a 40-year history of alums who graduated from CSPP and USIU, and, after the name changed to Alliant, as one interviewee said, there was an obliteration of our legacy institutional identities. Another interviewee said that not involving alumni alienated our graduates and made them feel disconnected from their alma mater. Both former institutions had a long history of loyal alumni, and the decision to discontinue their names and identity to those institutions resulted in severed ties, which are difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. 447

Students pay great sums of money to attend institutions for the value and prestige of the names they carry. Their identity and loyalty also reside with that name, so when a name is completely discontinued and alumni are not engaged in the process, they become detached from the institution. Successful practice in mergers involves engaging, to the degree of appropriateness, key stakeholder groups. In a university, alumni are a key stakeholder group, and they were not addressed appropriately in this case. 8. External communication, publicity, promotion, marketing, public relations, and branding efforts were minimal in the beginning stages of the merger/acquisition which resulted in decreased awareness, recognition, reputability, and prestige of the new university. Because the university was renamed Alliant they essentially had to start over with getting the word out to the community. Because of this, all the prestige and branding associated with the former institutions, USIU and CSPP, came to a standstill. Whether it was because there was not enough funding to launch a marketing campaign dedicated to this effort or because it was not a priority, publicizing the new university name was done minimally and, as a result, the new name is still not widely known in the greater community. One interviewee said: Successful merger practice also involves managing external groups and stakeholders. Alumni are one of those. The other is related to publicity and branding of a new identity. Its like when a company launches a new product. They create a whole campaign for that product. We didnt do that and our enrollment dropped. All these name changes have happened with very minimal attention to the external marketplace. Were still suffering consequences from that. In the marketplace you really only get one shot and thats the launch period. Its very difficult to go back to the marketplace and try to re-brand yourself. It 448

can turn into a big mess if you dont get on it right away. Now it takes twice as long and requires twice as much effort to provide a clear identity of who we are. Although in recent years the university has been more aggressive in its marketing endeavors and with social media, it is much more difficult now because this was not done to a great extent in the beginning stages. Therefore, it is crucial for colleges and universities engaged in a merger/acquisition to publicize this endeavor not only to the internal community, but to the wider external community as well so that people, especially potential students, are made aware of the changes that are taking place. The cost of launching such a campaign should be factored into the overall cost of the merger/acquisition as well because it is, after all, a part of this endeavor. 9. Didnt reduce, consolidate, differentiate, or streamline administration central/system offices and staff and staff roles in time to achieve economies of scale and an efficient and effective workforce. One of the main objectives of joining forces with another institution/organization is to reduce redundancy so that the new, combined entity can obtain economies of scale and cost savings in areas that will, in turn, result in greater efficiency and profitability or, at least, achieve a greater return on investment. For universities, this means more money going toward the institutions mission: educating students. This objective, however, was not achieved in the beginning stages of the merger/acquisition in this case; in fact, redundancy was increased rather than decreased. According to the Combination Proposal submitted to WASC in November 2000: The transitional process is projected to require two years. It will ensure that services to students will continue with minimal disruption during the transition phase. This initial administrative and academic structure will be larger and less cost effective than we would envision in the long run. Some duplication in

449

positions and titles will occur, although we have made sure that the actual roles and responsibilities of all administrators and personnel are differentiated. In the long run, the goal is to implement a leaner, more efficient structure with a smaller number of administrative and academic leaders. However, to design this structure prematurely would not be in the ultimate interest of either CSPP or USIU. Initially, the staffs will be working in parallel; each assigned to the activities of their home institution. Some departments with fewer staff or more discrete areas of responsibility may develop transition plans relatively quickly, whereas other departments, with varied or interdependent functions, or where the transition is dependent on technological or academic adaptations or integration, may require significantly more time. Some duplication is initially desired because the consolidation requires the efforts, experience, and knowledge of all current administrators and staff. We will be able to transition more rapidly and smoothly by maintaining initial staffing at a higher level than will be needed in the long run. The redundancy will allow operations to continue under the guidance of those most familiar with the functions and operations of their offices. Even though the university planned on redundancy in the beginning, it cost the institution much more than anticipated; and, as a result, the integration between the two systems, people, and practices became even more prolonged. The new university basically operated with two central offices. The president and most of the central administration were located in an office building in San Francisco, while the remaining system wide administrators were located on the San Diego Scripps Ranch campus. One interviewee said: Having the central administration in two different locations was not a smart move. It would have saved considerable time and money (i.e., expensive office space in downtown San Francisco and travel expenses incurred by traveling so frequently to and from San Diego to San Francisco) to have the System Office and all the staff located on one campus, especially the one campus where the physical merger was taking place. The former AIU provost, who was based in San Francisco, also disagreed with the administrative structures being in two separate, distant locations. She thought that she

450

should have been based on the San Diego campus because that was where the merger really took place and she spent so much time there. It certainly took a lot of time, energy, and resources in going back and forth so frequently. Another interviewee said that the president and her VPs were in a location separate from all the campus activities. It is no wonder campuses felt isolated and disconnected from university leadership. That kind of institutional arrangement does not instill connection and trust with faculty and students. The redundancy and overlap of jobs and responsibilities also became problematic because there was no accountability in terms of who was taking over. In fact, it was unclear as to who, exactly, was in charge. An administrator during the time recalled this experience: We didnt give one authority over the other. We didnt clarify who reports to whom. We basically just left it to them, which resulted in people not getting much done since they didnt want to step on each others toes. You had people from two different institutions competing with each other rather than working together. They didnt know us, we didnt know them, and there was no feeling of were in this together. Because there was no accountability in place, the Director of Financial Aid overspent $3 million and was under investigation for fraud. He had two bosses (one in San Francisco and one in San Diego), but he wasnt reporting to either of them because they were not talking to each other and he was acting unilaterally without any controls or supervision. (Former CSPP/AIU Senior VP, 2009) Another unfortunate casualty of this culture of non-accountability was student services: Pathetic service was a result of not streamlining systems and students ultimately suffered. In some instances there was confusion over who was in charge and in other cases there was no one in charge. Problems were not getting dealt with.

451

And it was largely because of how we were organized and not having the right people in the right jobs. (CSPP/Alliant Administrator, 2009) Looking back, the former CSPP/AIU President regretted the decision to not streamline the university right from the start. She believed that everyones job could be saved. But the reality of most mergers/acquisitions proves that this rarely occurs. I tried to save everyones job because I genuinely thought that every person had something valuable to contribute. In retrospect, this was a mistake because it just isnt feasible, and it creates factions and competition between colleagues. You cant have two of everything. The USIU President resigned, so I became the new President, but this was not done at the other levels and positions and it should have . (Former CSPP/AIU President, 2009) This objective of achieving economies of scale bears repeating. If two institutions combine and do not streamline the organizational structure and systems, the whole idea of the merger/acquisition is undermined. The idea behind a merger/acquisition is that the combined entity can often reduce its fixed costs by removing duplicate departments or operations, lowering the costs of the overhead relative to the same revenue stream, and, thus increasing profit margins. When consolidation is not done, it costs twice as much to operate the combined entity, which results in inefficiency, higher operating costs, and less revenue. Therefore, it is imperative that systems and structures be streamlined and consolidated in the beginning of a merger/acquisition so that the new, combined entity does not incur increased costs and duplication. 10. Did not have the proper financial and management information systems and personnel in place as a result of prolonging the integration of the two institutions systems (CARS). Because the information systems of USIU and CSPP were not properly integrated at the start of the merger/acquisition, the university later discovered that the $9 million

452

they had in reserves was depleted. The university then had to borrow money during the summer of 2003 to stay afloat until the fall semester. There were essentially no tracking or control systems in place to monitor the finances, which resulted in the universitys overspending. One interviewee said: The major trouble hit with the information systems. Because both institutions used CARS, the integration was thought to be compatible and smooth. However, each institution had its own modified CARS system so they were not the least bit compatible. Each side thought that their system should be the new system and discussions went on and on and the integration was delayed. So both systems were being used simultaneously with two sets of books and nobody was really certain about where things were going and the checks and balances were nonexistent which made things chaotic. Nobody was watching the money going out and the expenses pile up. Thus, the financial systems were not in place well enough to track and control spending. Further, the university did not have a CFO during the transition phase. Therefore, the lesson is, in the words of one interviewee: Pay attention to your systems, pay attention to your systems, pay attention to your systems. Spend the time up front to develop and coordinate your systems so that you can let them work for you, not against you. Get the basics down. We spent a lot of time on creating our new mission and logo when we should have made sure that our budgeting system worked and we had a CFO in place. The biggest problems resulted from the fact that we had no financial leadership during the combination/integration period. The USIU CFO retired in December of 2000, and the CSPP CFO retired in January of 2001. From my perspective, that was the biggest problem that impacted this University. If I could go back in time and do it over again, I would work much harder to ensure that we got a good CFO in place at the very beginning of the combination. (USIU/Alliant General Counsel, 2009) Another interviewee commented: Since we both used the same information systems, we assumed the combination would be successful, but they were modified so differently that they might as well have been two completely different systems. So registration was a mess, and students were asked whether they were USIU or CSPP. It took two years to straighten that out. That is a big reason why we lost all that money: the systems didnt work, and we didnt have a CFO. (CSPP/Alliant Administrator, 2009)

453

Because an integrated information system was not in place: We had no financial controls. There were no budgets. Everyone was freespending. It was a combined operation of about $50 million with no financial controls. Perhaps the most important lesson of all and the main reason we were not as successful as we could have been or should have been was the lack of financial controls. The most important thing is to have your financial ducks in a row and be able to understand exactly what is happening from a financial point of view so you can control your expenses. If I could go back in time knowing what I know now, I would have put much more pressure on the President. No one else was raising the red flag, so I would have spoken up more. If I could do it differently, I would have been more assertive in stating my opinion, which was that this was not right. (USIU/AIU Dean, 2009) Therefore, one of the most difficult lessons this university had to learn was that part of the cost of doing a merger/acquisition is combining the information systems into one system. Even if both partners use the same kind of system, this does not guarantee compatibility or ease of integration because both systems were modified to fit each individual institution. There is no one-size-fits-all system in this case. Both institutions were different, and the systems they used reflected that. They probably should have brought in a consultant to address the needs of the combined institution and modify or create an entire new system to fit those needs, rather than trying to carry out this project on their own and prolonging the integration, which almost cost the life of the institution. It is also essential to have the personnel, such as the CFO and his or her finance staff, in place during a merger. Without this full-time expertise, institutional spending can run rampant; and by the time it is realized, it might be too late. The university was fortunate that they were able to stay afloat when they realized that they ran out of money. This might not happen in other situations; it just depends how severe the situation is and how quickly an institution can turn itself around. Therefore, it is better to ensure that the systems and people are in place, right from the beginning.

454

11. Did not have the leadership/management capability/expertise (particularly at the top levels) required to execute, manage, and oversee this combination implementation. Most of the interviewees agreed that the combination was better in theory than in reality and that it was implemented poorly. In other words, it looked better on paper than it did in person. One interviewee said that he thought it was a good decision; it just was not executed well. The place should not have nearly collapsed. Another interviewee commented, It seemed like a very unique opportunity with a lot of potential, but it was poorly executed. Another interviewee stated, I personally think that the idea was right, but the way we did it was wrong. A CSPP faculty member said, It was a difficult and challenging time. It was a time of both hope and disappointment: hope at the potential of the merger, and disappointment at the depth and extent to which it was messed up at every turn (Alliant online survey, 2009). For example, the Director of Financial Aid, who had overspent $3 million and was under investigation for fraud, had two bosses, but he was not reporting to either of them because they were not communicating with each other. Therefore, the director was acting unilaterally, without any controls or supervision. Meanwhile, the newly hired CFO, located in San Francisco, sort of knew he was doing it, but didnt really report it to the president. One interviewee said that the CFO would come to meetings and say, I think were overspending significantly. However, because the numbers were not being reported, as there was no information system in place, no one could know for sure what was going on. One interviewee remarked:

455

Sometimes, people in these kinds of top positions withhold certain information so that they have the power of knowing things that nobody else knows and can be the gatekeeper of information. Sort of like what goes on in the corporate world sometimes, the CFO would only tell us that we needed to cut our budgets without giving us information on the entire organizations finances. We did not have an overall picture of what was going on financially. So it is very important, especially in a merger/acquisition situation, to create a culture and a system which guards against this. Another interviewee, who was a faculty member and board member, also agreed that those in top positions were reluctant to share information because withholding that information made them powerful and indispensable. This interviewee went on to say: For two years the campuses were operating without a budget. Things were not transparent and I think information was withheld from the Board. I think that because I asked questions and wanted more information about these kinds of things, some public trustees thought I had too narrow an interest and saw me as a faculty representative or advocate rather than as a trustee. And, yes, this is a delicate line we balance. We are a faculty voice, but also a trustee vote. I dont think some of the public board members ever understood that. But having served for 9 years on the Board, I think faculty and students did serve in the best interest of the Institution, not necessarily their own. You had students voting for tuition increases and faculty voting for pay cuts, so you cannot say that they were only in it for themselves and to serve their own private gains and interests. But nonetheless, this became a misperception in us being able to contribute effectively since we have such strong vested interest in the University, which doesnt always resonate with public trustees. They didnt like us complaining, but the things that we were complaining about ended up to be the most serious problems in 2004, like information not being provided to the Board and to WASC. Part of what some of the interviewees mentioned as information hoarding by some of the people at the top has to do with the organizational culture that supports this type of behavior. If it is customary for people at the top to withhold information, it can create a culture of mistrust and competition rather than foster a culture of openness and collaboration. One interviewee described the culture that he believes this created:

456

The problem with the place was that there was no real accountability. No consequence. Some people might think that it is business ethics to have accountability, but I think it is just plain ethics, especially if you are in education. Something got lost with the notion that everything is a teachable moment. People are learning, whether or not you think youre teaching. If your behavior is moral, immoral, or amoral, people are learning that. I always try to have full disclosure whether its good, bad, or indifferent so that people can see where Im coming from. Theres meaning to everything you do as an administrator. Youre human so you make mistakes, but you also have to pay attention. I dont get how anyone in charge cannot take responsibility. Thats not a lesson you want to promote to anybody. Another interviewee also spoke about the lack of good leadership and how that affected the institutional culture: We went through the first three years without adequate CFO-type leadership. Upon announcement of the merger, USIUs CFO quit. Then a few months into the merger, CSPPs CFO quit. Then it took a year to get someone else into the job and the guy that we got into the job wasnt adequate. We went for two entire academic years with no budget. We were $6 million in the hole by June of 2003, and that occasioned the need for lay-offs. A lot of people got sacrificed along the way; mostly staff, some faculty. We have a responsibility of public trust and we didnt live up to it. I didnt feel like I lived up to it and I think most of us felt that way. Neither one of our institutions (CSPP or USIU) had one dime that didnt come from students. Therefore, how we do things should take them into account. I think the biggest thing that we could have done differently from the get-go is be more open about what we were trying to do. Looking back, I wish I would have been more aggressive about what should be done and how it should be done. And I regret not doing that because it cost us. I wish I had pushed harder. These kinds of events are so big and so complicated that they require people who have specialized knowledge to be utilized. One of the elements of our culture back then was No good deed will go unpunished. That is not the case now. Our culture back then created the need to blame people when things went wrong. We had a strong need to make sure that people were punished. A lot of that has gone away, which is good. But it did interfere with the process of good management at the time. Today we are more open but we are still not as open as we should be.

457

Another interviewee, who was on the board at the time, discussed the importance of board composition, leadership, and competence and how that is vitally important, especially during such times as merger/acquisition: I think who is on the board is really important. I think the composition of the board at the time of the combination was based on who was known to whom rather than the utilization of expertise for what is needed on the board to conduct the business of the board, especially during this time of merger/acquisition implementation. I think that a lot of the choices and decisions that were made were a result of people not asking the right questions or knowing how to analyze the information that was available and being open to getting the kinds of consultation that we needed. I think that is a critical lesson about board expertise, board recruitment, board leadership, and board training and development. In retrospect, I think this may be a fundamental reason why we went in the direction that we went. I also think there needs to be a cordial, but skeptical, relationship between the board and the president. I do not think there was enough skepticism and, instead, there was too much support or trust in the president, who ended up blindsiding the board, crippling the institution, and almost taking it down with most people, particularly those on the board, not even realizing it at the time. The people on the board who were on the committee that hired the president wanted to reinforce the decision that they had made to hire this person by siding with her and even renewing her contract after the votes of no confidence from the campuses had already been issued. I think who is on the board makes a huge difference in decisions that are made. We just had the wrong people in the wrong positions. They were all wellmeaning, well-intentioned people. They just lacked the expertise needed at the time. If I could go back and do things differently I would make sure that we had the necessary skills, both on the board and in the administration, to have what it takes to execute and implement a merger/acquisition properly and can handle the issues that arise. I would have been even more vocal on the board in retrospect. Another interviewee also mentioned the lack of leadership and how that affected the culture. In the end, it was the threat of going out of business that brought the two sides together: It was the finances equally as much as the culture that caused the place to fall apart. Later on, it was the shared goal of getting off Show Cause that finally made us come together. We had to focus on survival. USIU had been through

458

this before, but CSPP in its lifetime never had any problems with losing its accreditation. The problems that WASC identified in its Show Cause sanction certainly were real. This helped put the focus on what was really important and vital. By the way, WASC is one of the more aggressive accrediting bodies. They have shut down several institutions since we had our Show Cause and it is usually over finances and leadership not performing as it should. Daniel and Metcalf (2001) stated, The need for leadership is never more apparent than during times of crisis or dramatic change. Leadership focuses peoples attention and energy on something greater than just themselves (p. 131). Having the right leadership in place (particularly at the top) with the expertise needed to execute, manage, and oversee a merger/acquisition implementation cannot be stressed enough. This leadership helps create a culture that can make or break an institution and keep it on track to achieve its strategic goals and objectives. It is important that the leadership helps create a culture of openness, transparency, accountability, and shared decision making. In turn, this will create a sense of institutional trust and a feeling of shared accomplishment when things do go right. Trust is and should be one of the main objectives of leadership, as trust plays a key role in the integration process (Stahl & Mendenhall, 2005, p. 84). 12. Did not allow for quick wins. A seemingly simple, but also important, lesson from this case is that the president and top administration did not allow for quick wins to generate excitement and enthusiasm for the proposed change effort, which typically results in intrinsic motivation, commitment, contribution, participation, and loyalty to the new, combined organization. The result of generating quick wins creates momentum for this change, affecting both

459

peoples feelings and their actions toward it. It also helps combat resistance to change when people feel as though the changes are creating success. An interviewee said that one of the quick wins (after the collapse of AIU as a result of the Show Cause order and during the transition of the acting president) was the work done on the institutional values because that was a very visible, inclusive, and integrative process with real and tangible outcomes that brought people from both legacy institutions together to debate and discuss the identity of the new institution. Bringing the sides together to discuss how they want the institution to look resulted in a positive dialogue that, in turn, created a quick win that people from both sides could rally behind, which also created momentum to push the institution forward. 13. Did not make a concerted enough effort to merge institutional cultures at the beginning of the merger/acquisition. Many of the interviewees agree that not enough effort and energy were put into merging the two institutional cultures at the beginning of the merger. One interviewee said, Our focus should have been on merging our cultures. Instead, we were more concerned with getting all the desks and chairs in the right places (CSPP/Alliant Administrator, 2009). Another interviewee said, During the merger, the cultures were really never brought together. There was some work done in that direction, but we didnt have a systematic effort to blend cultures. In corporate mergers and acquisitions there is a lot of work done in this area and on Day 1 it is made clear who is in charge. That was not the case with us. A lot of the responsibilities were just floating around with no one taking real ownership of it. The merger was a very good conceptual idea, but it was not well executed, and part of that reason has to do with the lack of combining the cultures. (CSPP/Alliant Professor, 2009)

460

Merging campus cultures is no easy task. We had at least six different [institutional] cultures, and thats what made it tough; USIU being a traditional university and CSPP being a professional school. Everybody liked what they had and didnt want to change (USIU/AIU Dean, 2009). A faculty member from CSPP commented that the university tried to blend both of the previous cultures, and there were some shared values and goals, but it continued to be a culture of chaos where both groups tried to remain separate, feeling their way was the better way (Alliant online survey, 2009). Another interviewee said that there were some attempts made to merge the cultures, such as team-building exercises, led by the former provost: But this attempt didnt really address what was at the core of our culture clash: our differences, while also, at the same time, making our similarities known to each other to build commonality. It was somewhat of a superficial attempt to merge the institutional cultures. An institutional merger/combination is very difficult to achieve. The most difficult part is merging the cultures, especially if they are very different, and even if they are seemingly similar. But it can be done. Both sides should do their research. The planning period is critical and should not be underestimated. In our case, there should have been a lot more research conducted on college mergers in general and about the merging partners in particular on both sides. It is important to understand though that this process takes a long time to accomplish. You cant just impose a new culture and expect it to immediately stick. It is a long-term endeavor and universities are slowmoving organizations. So, although it has taken a long time, and is even still ongoing, I feel that we have come a long way since then. (USIU Department Chair, 2009) Akatcherian (2001) stated, When two companies merge, the usual claim is that there is a fit between them. Often the claim is based on the presumed cultural compatibility of the two organizations (p. 14). It appears that the two institutions, CSPP and USIU, were seen as compatible in terms of their programs and missions/visions. However, as Akatcherian maintained, The perception that two

461

disparate groups of separately trained employees, working in unique environments under different circumstances, will automatically coexist as a merged workforce is tantamount to wishful thinking (p. 14). Further, success, growth, and synergy: cannot be achieved unless [the] post-merger integration plan focuses strongly on aligning, as well as possible, the cultures of the combined companies. Management can never assume that the development of a new belief system or overall cultural alignment will happen by itself [or through a series of merely a few team-building exercises]. Beliefs are built, learned, and reinforced [over time]. Before new beliefs can be created, old beliefs and attitudes must be gauged. When acquiring people via merger or acquisition, you are gaining employees who bring with them a set of beliefs and values entirely different from your existing workforce. Either the former corporate culture will gel with the new one or it will clash. (p. 14) The former AIU President also recognized the importance that culture played in this case. What I learned is: dont mess with the culture; build on it. No one wants to give up their culture. It is deeply embedded in peoples identity. If you mess with the culture, people will feel threatened and turn against you. (CSPP/AIU President, 2009) Culture is at the heart of everything we do, and everything we do affects culture, both as individuals and as a collective community. During times of drastic change, such as a merger/acquisition, when people are especially sensitive and skeptical, it is important not to undermine culture. This does not mean culture cannot be changed but that it must be done so in a way that does not disregard or disrespect culture. This includes history, legacy, identity, traditions, beliefs, and values. It is better to build on the cultures than try to tear them down and start over because to do so can feel belittling and disheartening to those who embrace it. Daniel and Metcalf (2001) stated that organizational leaders, in their enthusiasm for a future that is going to be better than the past, ridicule or talk negatively of the old ways of doing things. In doing so, they consolidate the resistance against the transition because people strongly identify with the way things used to be. They feel that their self-worth is at stake when the past is attacked. (p. 104)

462

Thus, it is important to honor the past for what it has accomplished, and the people who were part of it (Daniel & Metcalf, 2001, p. 105). For a merger or acquisition to be successful, Schein (1999) stated that the integration strategy has to fit the existing culture (p. 32). Kusstatscher and Cooper (2005) indicated that, Mergers and acquisitions often fail to reach intended goals because of underestimated human factors (p. 17). In addition, Mergers and acquisitions can have a considerable impact on the psychological bond between employees and organization. It is recommended that managers make sure that employees identify with the whole, merged [organization] to achieve post-merger integration [success] (p. 65). Merging cultures is not easy, but nevertheless it must be accomplished to make change. Merging cultures also can be positive and can result in synergy when done right. Building on what people have in common while exposing them to each others differences can be an enlightening and transformational experience. It does take time and participation from all involved and a true commitment from everyone to improve the organization. Once everyone is on board with the process, and the organizations goals, objectives, and vision are communicated, the real magic of organizational synergy can take place. 14. Did not use best practices or try to take the best from both sides to create synergy. It appears that a concerted effort was never made to combine the best practices of both institutions, which could have created synergy for the combined institution. Synergy is one of the main objectives for merging organizations, but it seems as though

463

the culture clash prohibited that from happening. Synergy requires taking the best from both sides to create an even stronger organization. However, it appears that this never occurred, at least in the beginning. One interviewee said: We never took the time to scrub our processes and combine best practices for either of the institutions. I think one of our biggest mistakes was that, because we each used the same student database system (CARS), we assumed that the two would naturally integrate. In reality, they were completely incompatible. This led to a lot of difficulty in terms of implementation. Our systems, policies, and procedures were so different. Our cultures, in terms of compliance, were so different. The two had very different sets of controls. USIU was a highly controlled organization. CSPP was more flexible and had more variations in their budgeting process. I also think that we should have considered USIUs continuous enrollment system before doing away with it to adhere to CSPPs semester system. I think that was a big mistake. In terms of enrollment, it lessened opportunities to enroll. I think were even dealing with this now in terms of our admissions process. USIU had a very fluid admissions and enrollment process to be able to accommodate international students. After the combination, we changed to CSPPs semester system without taking proper consideration into how this might impact enrollment. Maybe the semester system is appropriate for graduate education, but there are also a lot of colleges that do graduate education using the quarter system and in recent years we began offering 8-week classes to be more market responsive to what students want. We made those major structural changes without realizing the effects. We couldnt have had both systems, but maybe we could have looked at the two systems more closely and weighed the pros and cons of each. Another interviewee from USIU believed that there was closed-mindedness in terms of taking the best of both institutions. It was almost as if there was a concerted effort to disregard all the policies and practices of the USIU side. For example, USIU had an excellent IT system and student records system, which was immediately dished. USIU also had an excellent automated accounting system which was tied to the student record system. In an ideal merger situation, you want to reap the benefits and best practices of both so you can get true synergies. I dont think that happened. A staff member from the IT department during the merger said that he often heard about the CSPP way vs. the USIU way. There was constant contrast and comparison

464

regarding who/what was better. Instead of analyzing each instance and opting for the best decision there was a lot of finger pointing and dissatisfaction (Alliant survey, 2009) It remains to be seen whether there was indeed any true, concerted effort to take the best of both sides in the beginning of the combination. It is clear that it was not done with regard to combining people, jobs, and systems in a way that created synergy. True synergy was not really achieved until later, when the new president and administration held discussions among all constituency groups about the mission, vision, and values of the institution and what people wanted the university to look like. It was during this time that a new university identity began to be crafted that sparked peoples commitment and enthusiasm. Afterthoughts Final question to interviewees: What advice do interviewees give to others pursuing or contemplating a college or university merger/acquisition? The final question posed to interviewees asked what their advice would be to others who were pursuing or contemplating a college or university merger or acquisition. Most of their answers fell into the categories of: communication, leadership, culture, and integration planning and implementation, as well as having the expertise and resources necessary to execute the merger. Communication. Communicate frequently; over-communicate if necessary; make sure everyone is informed and updated regularly regarding the changes; involve all stakeholders in the process as early as possible. Use the textbook methodology for managing change. If that was done it would have worked a lot better. (USIU/Alliant Faculty Member/Former Alliant Board Member, 2009)

465

Communication was an important lesson learned in this case. It is very important to communicate frequently to internal as well as external stakeholders so they know what to expect. Communication is also a two-way street. It is not enough to report on what is happening and merely give updates. You also need to solicit input and feedback so that stakeholders can get their voices heard and be part of the process. A major component of communication is listening. This was not done nearly enough in this case. Leaders need to allow for opportunities for stakeholders to voice their opinion and listen closely to what people are saying. This is especially critical in institutions of higher education, where shared governance is paramount and participation is necessary. This also allows for more synergy to take place and helps combat resistance to change. If the university had done this in the beginning of the combination, perhaps it could have avoided such situations as information hoarding and mistrust in leadership. Fortunately, Alliant has made improvements in this in recent years and regularly reaches out to the university community, using tools such as online surveys, focus groups, discussion panels, and social networking when decisions are being made. This has made for a stronger university community and culture that practices transparency and openness. Culture. Although I understand the need for and importance of team-building exercises, I think that another way to merge or unite people is to also provide opportunities to work together since you will be working in the same organization for many years to come. When you work with people you learn and get to know them. Departments sometimes work in silos which can foster an us versus them mentality and create tensions between the different departments, which can be magnified in a merger situation. That is why activities like shared governance; serving on university committees; collaborating on projects; joint research; participating in community service and events; and working in teams with people from various departments, fields, programs, and disciplines is important; it enriches university life.

466

Providing ways to engage people with the institution and with peers helps cultivate a positive culture and university identity. In general, the more involved people are in their university, the more they care about their university, which means that they will give back more to their university. This is an important lesson for building a strong culture, community, commitment, and connection to ones university- whether it be faculty, students, staff, alumni, or the public- and creates an institutional identity that inspires people to want to do good for their university. Thats what we had at USIU and thats what I think is missing now at Alliant and needs to be brought back. (USIU Department Chair, 2009) Culture played a large role in this case. Generally, the stronger the institutional culture, the harder it is to surrender it; and both CSPP and USIU had strong cultures. Consequently, merging them was a very difficult endeavor because neither side wanted to give up its identity. There were some attempts made to merge the cultures in the beginning, but these attempts were met with strong opposition, in which competition and conflict arose over whose culture would be the one kept, going forward. Over time, it has become apparent that the CSPP culture and identity has remained intact while the USIU culture and identity has faded away. There really was not a successful attempt to merge cultures until after the Show Cause order was issued and the university created I-MERIT, which managed to blend an identity that represented each side. If this type of endeavor was done in the beginning of the merger, it may have turned out differently. However, it is important, in cases involving merger, to not fail to manage the culture. If it truly is a merging of equals, than equal respect should be given to both sides. Because this case was technically an acquisition disguised as a merger, it is uncertain whether the agenda really was to merge both sides equally. If the intent was for one side to be the dominating side, then it should not have been communicated as a merger of equals. Again, this comes down to

467

communication and transparency. If the intent was to eliminate the USIU side, then that should have been communicated. If the intent was to merge both sides equally, then efforts should have been made to take the best of both sides to create synergy. The most important part of merging cultures is listening to people and respecting both sides equally. Integration Planning and Management Blending cultures should be part of the integration planning, which was not done to the degree that it should have. Some of the advice given regarding integration planning is: First, you have to know that it is going to be hard. If you are genuinely trying to preserve the best of what you have, it is hard. If you go in from the beginning knowing that you have to make cuts it is hard from the beginning, but time will eventually heal the wounds. It is better to get it done fast in the beginning than prolong things that just are not working and will, eventually, need to be cut anyway. Make sure you both really do want to do it. If so, follow through with it. If you both want to do it, stay committed to it and follow through in the implementation. Select a team leader to lead the integration team; someone whose job it is to make sure that it is a successful integration. What happened in our case was that everyone continued with their same old jobs, but no one was tasked with the integration so things had basically continued as they had before, which goes against the whole point of the combination. There was no one in charge of the team or integration effort to bring the two sides together. We only had an integration team for the San Diego campus. We didnt have one that was system wide for the entire University. (USIU/Alliant, General Counsel, 2009) Think hard; plan well; be inclusive; and make it a real combination, not just something written down on paper. (USIU/AIU Administrator, 2009) It can be done, and you can survive. It is more likely to be successful with more planning and more discussion with constituencies. You have to be open with students, faculty, alumni, trustees, staff, and administrators in talking about how to accomplish it most effectively. You have to be clear about what the strengths

468

and weaknesses are and make sure that all the key constituent groups have input and that you get a diversity of opinion. (CSPP Professor, 2009) Make sure you your financials are in order. Make sure you start very early on with your merger/acquisition plans: academic affairs, student affairs, enrollment management, operations, marketing, and communications in general. (USIU/AIU Dean, 2009) Take the time to plan. Involve all of your constituencies, not just the top leadership. Anticipate outcomes. Make sure you have a strategic plan so that everyone feels like they are benefiting and communicate the rationale of that strategic plan so people will buy into it and turn it into a reality. If the current Alliant President had led the merger/acquisition he most likely would have had more success because he is good at explaining and articulating how we all have a common denominator and a common goal. Then maybe we would have been better be able to deal with it and buy into it. (CSPP Faculty Member & Program Director, 2009) A good idea is not sufficient unless you have a good execution of the idea. You need to carefully think through the details of the implementation, just as the work was done on executing the legal and financial portion of the deal. Usually to make the case you have to oversell the delivery. This happened with us when we told the accrediting body that we would have a surplus the first year when, in reality, we incurred a serious loss. You also have to keep all the university stakeholders informed and if you run into problems admit it. Dont hide it. Figure out a way to get yourself out of that problem. We had a failure to plan and a failure to execute. We should have taken more time to figure out the details. The style of management also conflicted with what needed to be managed. The intent to control everything backfired and we couldnt control anything from the top. Over-communicate every step of the way. You have to staff adequately to do this. We bit off more than we could chew in terms of the resources that we had to properly execute it. You need to proceed cautiously and be upfront when you mess up and own it and move on. When these things get out of control they get really nasty and ugly. (CSPP Professor, 2009) What happens after the ink dries is what matters most and that is where you really need to put in the time, energy, and effort if you are going to make the transaction a success, however you define what success means. You usually pay fair value or close to fair value when you acquire something. What gives it the real value is what you do with it after you acquire it. I dont think AIU did a very good job managing the merger after the ink dried and the deal was done. Very little went into the most important part of the merger: its implementation. Crafting the deal is not the merger. It is only the first step of the merger. What really matters is

469

what takes place in the implementation. Even if you look at corporate America, the majority of the merger deals are not successful in the long term. Most of the people involved in constructing the deal like the investors, lawyers, etc., dont really care what happens afterwards. They make money on the transaction alone. Projections are always overly optimistic in these kinds of deals and they are often done because strong minded CEOs or leaders want them to be done. And sometimes they are right and their instinct is right, but they are also often wrong. Most educational institutions have a diffuse form of management. Leadership is much more diffused around the organization. The head of the English department, for example, has a whole lot of sway, etc. so, by definition, you have very diffused power in higher education management structures. It may not look that way on the organizational chart, but in reality that is how the system works. I think this makes it harder to integrate and merge higher education institutions. It is harder to organize and rally everyone behind one goal or one purpose when power is diffused. I dont think there was enough thought on the integration in this case. (Former CSPP/AIU Public Trustee, 2009) Taking the time to plan a merger or acquisition is of critical importance to its success. Accountability measures need to be put in place as well as an integration team to lead the implementation. One of the aspects involved in the planning effort is conducting research. According to the interviewees, it appears that very little research was conducted on mergers or acquisitions, particularly with regard to the higher education sector. Many of the interviewees attributed this to the belief that insufficient research existed on higher education mergers and acquisitions. This may be true in part, but it is not known how much effort was made to find such research and sources of information on college and university mergers and acquisitions. Nonetheless, this was a mistake and should have been done prior to the combination. McBain (2009) stated that it is prudent for institutional decision-makers to examine the history of higher education mergers when considering merger proposals (p. 4).

470

Leadership The final lesson and piece of advice given to others who are pursuing a merger or acquisition involves having the right kind of leadership and expertise needed to implement the integration. It is important that everyone at the top (including the board of trustees), and throughout the institution, is on the same page with regard to the goals and objectives for completing the combination. If top university officials do not have the expertise themselves, consultants who do have expertise in mergers and acquisitions should be brought in to help with the integration, and an integration team should be set up within the organization with team leaders to carry out the implementation. After the issues with the former AIU President and being placed on Show Cause, we learned our lesson and brought in a new leadership team starting from the President and people on the board of trustees who understand financial planning and how to read a profit and loss statement. It is important to have a strong representation on the board with people who understand finance. Before and during the merger, we didnt have the expertise and members that understood finance, and that was the problem. (USIU/Alliant Faculty Member and Former Alliant Board Member, 2009) Make sure you have the right people on the board of trustees with the expertise needed to oversee a merger/acquisition and if you dont have people with that expertise, make sure that expertise is brought in to provide consultation and help tackle the issues that arise, because they will. If somebody says that you do not have the money to pay for this kind of expertise then I would say that you do not have the resources required to do a merger/acquisition. At the very least, in our case, we could have used internal faculty resources and expertise to help us with this merger/acquisition and then maybe they would have felt included, invested, reached out to, consulted, and then they would have taken more shared responsibility for the combinations success and outcomes. (CSPP Professor and Former CSPP/AIU Board Member, 2009) Probably the most important lesson is having the resources necessary to do a merger, not just financial resources, but human resources- people whose expertise is in mergers. Very few of us, if anyone, had experience with mergers so I do not think we really knew what to expect and even if we did, we did not plan for it accordingly. This is sort of a catch-22 because the whole reason for merger is that

471

both organizations were lacking in resources, yet planning and executing a merger requires resources, like hiring merger consultants, etc. and this is vital to their success. (Former CSPP, then AIU, President, 2009) Marks and Mirvis (1998) stated that M&As often fail due to inadequate vision, inadequate resources, inadequate communication, inadequate teamwork, and inadequate planning. Further, Ursin (2012) noted that: Previous studies of university mergers show that the consolidation of organizational and institutional cultures and management styles of the merging institution plays a crucial role in how successful the merger is. Institutional leadership must create a vision of the merged institution that retains the strengths of the merging universities, but at the same time is responsive to external constraints. Universities wishing to get everyone on the same page and working towards successful merger should focus on ensuring that all those involved are included in the decision-making [process] and feel that the process is as transparent as possible. (para. 3) Researchers Lens Even though it is the interviewees views of the merger experience that are central in this case, it is also important to disclose the views of the researcher, which can contribute to the overall picture of the merger experience, also known as ethnography. Therefore, the following section describes the opinion of the researcher in the context of the merger event. Although I have not always agreed with the administrative decisions made at the university, those decisions have never negatively affected me personally. I was able to use all of my eligibility and play all four years of sports using my athletic scholarships before athletics were discontinued. I was able to live in the campus dorms (both Alpha and Beta) before they were torn down. I worked at the campus bookstore before it was closed. I participated in many aspects of student life that are no longer in existence. And most of all, I was able to receive the best education at all levels: undergraduate and

472

graduate programs from the best professors and administrators, many of whom are now gone. For these reasons, I feel lucky to have been a student at Alliant during the time I was there. Although I am optimistic for the future of the university, it is a very different place than when I first arrived as a college freshman. It has been due to my belief in the potential of Alliant that I am fiercely loyal to the institution. Even during the dark times, there was a silver lining. Alliant has felt like a second home to me, and the people, like family. It has been the individuals who make up Alliant and the relationships and friendships I have cultivated that have made my experience so great. Alliant is truly part of who I am. My stake and interest in the institution grew from a student-athlete to student leader, and board trustee to a scholar-advocate on behalf of Alliant. The more involved I became in the university, the more I cared about it. This evolved from a personal stake and interest in the institution into a sense of responsibility and citizenship in doing my part to contribute to the greater good. Whether it was picking up a piece of trash on campus, serving on a committee, passing along an idea or tidbit of information on how to make the place better or help someone out, my thought process went beyond my selfinterest to that of the betterment of the wholethe university. Staying at one place and doing all of ones post-secondary education at one institution may be looked down upon in the higher education community, but an environment where I was challenged, served well, and fulfilled made me want to stay loyal to it. My passion for the place also stems from its mission of educating students for an increasingly global and multicultural world.

473

When I first began my journey at the university, international students were the majority. The university was akin to a mini United Nations. I was lucky to meet people and make friends from all over the globe. Over time, I felt worldly, without ever even traveling. Being exposed to different ideas and cultures changed me and made me a better person who appreciates and values diversity, thanks to my enriching experience at Alliant International University. Recommendations for the University Alliant International University is in a much different place today than it was after the merger and even after the Show Cause order. It has made great strides in articulating a mission and vision that the university community embraces and has come a long way in terms of tracking and managing its finances. It was even recently announced that Alliant is, once again, going to be offering all four years of undergraduate study, which, they say, is in response to the California budget crisis that is affecting access to higher education. All these changes and initiatives are a positive step in the right direction for the university. A few recommendations to the university are given going forward that could help add to the repertoire of initiatives Alliant is implementing. Strategic Analysis, Planning, and Management It is critical to mention the importance of having a strategic planning process in place, especially after several interviewees mentioned that the university does not do enough strategic planning and more resources need to be dedicated to this endeavor. According to Nickols (2000): In virtually all universities and colleges, strategic planning is seen as an essential tool for effective institutional management. Effective planning helps higher education

474

institutions identify what makes them distinctive and what they have in common with others, and therefore helps [them] maintain their individuality. (p. 4) Another educational website states, Resource constraints and a dynamic global environment necessitate thoughtful, strategic thinking to be embedded in the decisionmaking process of the university, at all levels (University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, 2013.) Bryson (2004) defines strategic planning as a disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization (or other entity) is, what it does, and why it does it (p. 6). More simply put, strategic planning is: Where you are; Where you want to be; and How to get there. Its importance stems from its ability to help organizations and communities anticipate and respond to change in wise and effective ways (Bryson, 2004, p. 26). An effective strategic planning process involves conducting a strategic analysis that entails scanning the business environment and then formulating a competitive strategy, or strategic plan, accordingly. This process includes identifying key stakeholder groups and their salient issues as well as codifying the institutions strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT Analysis; Bryson, 2004). When gathering information, it is helpful to solicit input and information from stakeholders such as students, faculty, staff, board members, alumni, business leaders, donors, and others who play an important role in the institutions future. Other tools and approaches used in strategic planning include balanced scorecards, portfolios or matrices, scenario or situational analysis, gap analysis, strategic diagnosis, and developing ways to detect signals, issues, or changes in the environment. After information is sought, the institution must articulate long-range objectives that stem from its mission, vision, values, and goals. Action items and unit-

475

based planning is then assigned to leaders for implementation. Leaders then meet regularly to monitor progress and evaluate outcomes. For Alliant to distinguish itself and maintain its competitiveness in todays higher education environment, strategic planning and management must be instituted, especially at the top level. Alliant also should include and utilize its faculty in the strategic planning process, particularly those who teach strategy and strategic management. Those faculty members are a valuable untapped resource and, most likely, they would be happy to help. One element of the strategic planning process that Alliant did implement was its creation of its core set of values. Values are attitudes and beliefs that guide behavior. Selznick (1957) stated that values define the community of the organization and give it a distinctive identity (p. 16). Further, Selznick stated that organizations become infused with value as they come to symbolize the communitys aspirations, its sense of identity (p. 19). Organizations do not so much create values as embody them. As this occurs, the organization becomes increasingly institutionalized (Selznick, 1957, p. 20). Selznick observed that the task of building values and distinctive competence into the organization as well as defining its mission is the prime function of leadership. He further stated that, Organizations become institutions as they become infused with value. This infusion produces a distinct identity, [purpose, and character] for the organization (Selznick, 1957, p. 40). For these values to work, they cannot be forced onto people. They have to come from the people themselves. After the values are created by the people and narrowed down to the core set of values, behaviors that are acceptable and consistent with the values, as well as actions not consistent with the values, need to be communicated so that

476

people understand what is expected of them. Then these valued-based behaviors and actions should be encouraged, monitored, and rewarded. In addition, a shared and compelling vision for the future needs to be created. Our values also influence our vision of where we want to take this [institution]. Valuesthose concepts we hold dear, those things that are important to usform the founding for how we do things around here. How we do things around here defines who we are and what we stand for. It is the basis of our culture. Our vision communicates who we are and what we do. Our vision is our rallying flag; it provides a clear picture of where we are going. It tells our story to everyone inside and outside the [institution]. [In other words] the way we do things around here, that is our culture, is derived directly from our vision. Vision defines where we are going. And, all of it ties right back to our foundation of values- those things we think are important. Aristotle said it best: We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then is not an act, but a habit. (Selznick, 1957, p. 97) Further, Drucker (2001) asserted, The mission of the organization has to be clear enough and big enough to provide common vision. The goals that embody it have to be clear, public, and constantly reaffirmed. Managements first job is to think through, set, and exemplify those objectives, values, and goals. (p. 11) Collins (2001) noted the importance of ensuring that the right people are in place before members can accept the organizational strategy. In his research, he found that great companies first got the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seatsand then they figured out where to drive it (p. 13). Great companies also confront the brutal facts, yet never lose faith. You must maintain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, AND at the same time have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be (p. 13). To succeed in the business of higher education, Alliant must understand what it did best and what it did not. Lastly, great organizations

477

maintain a culture of discipline to implement the vision. One of the great successes that Alliant has implemented is its vision of internationalism and multiculturalism. Strengthening Alliants Institutional Identity and Culture One of the most successful initiatives Alliant has implemented has been I-MERIT (International-Multicultural Education, Research, Intervention, and Training), which is a university-wide initiative aimed at institutionalizing international and multicultural values into all of the universitys activities as well as build these competencies into all the universitys programs. This was something unique to both CSPP (which valued multiculturalism) and USIU (which valued internationalism) that was brought together through the implementation of I-MERIT. The concepts of internationalism and multiculturalism are undoubtedly worthy ideals that students need to learn to be successful in todays global society. Launch New Program in Global Peace Studies Along the same lines, it would be valuable to develop a new program in international peace studies and conflict resolution. Similar programs at various colleges and universities, both worldwide and across the country, have started to gain popularity and student demand for such programs have increased substantially. Harris, Fisk, and Rank (1998) stated that: Peace studies courses and programs address the effects of political and social violence, the causes of this violence, and what can be done to resolve conflicts peacefully. The rapid growth of these programs in colleges and universities reflects an alarm about growing levels of violence (the nuclear threat, low intensity conflict, the cost of the arms race, environmental destruction, domestic violence, ethnic and regional conflicts, etc.). Those concerned about violence are turning to education as a means to heighten awareness about the problems of violence, to stimulate research into alternative forms of dispute resolution, and to 478

promote nonviolent alternatives. In a violent world peace studies provides the opportunity for both faculty and students to create a better future by generating nonviolent alternatives to violence. The growth of peace studies programs indicates a concern for the future of this planet. (para. 9) Programs in peace studies promote international and cross-cultural understanding in the global village; this is aligned with Alliants mission and vision. This program is also interdisciplinary in nature, so it draws on several academic disciplines, such as International Relations. Global peace studies would fit synergistically into Alliants current mix of programs, as it contributes to an important growing body of research that connects with practice by preparing students to make the world a better, less violent, and more peaceful place. Alliant prides itself on its graduates making a difference in the world. Creating a program in global peace studies achieves just that. Education for the Soul Students receive a well-rounded education at Alliant. The coursework is challenging, life on campus can be active, and there is opportunity to improve leadership skills. There is, however, one aspect that seems to be missing: spiritual development. Time spent focusing on the mind, as a very holistic period in a persons life where contemplation beyond career or occupation takes place, offers students the opportunity ponder lifes big questions and how one fits into the world. It is, therefore, recommended that Alliant incorporate this aspect of spiritual development into the university to educate the whole person. Astin, Astin, and Lindholm (2010) stated that, Spirituality is fundamental to students lives. The big questions that preoccupy students are essentially spiritual questions: Who am I? What are my most deeply felt values? Do I have a mission or purpose in my life? Why am I in college? What kind of person do I want to become? What sort of world do I want to help

479

create? When we speak of students spiritual quest, we are essentially speaking of their efforts to seek answers to such questions. (p. 1) Further, these authors commented that, While higher education continues to put a lot of emphasis on test scores, grades, credits, and degrees, it has increasingly come to neglect its students inner development, the sphere of values and beliefs, emotional maturity, moral development, spirituality, and of self-understanding. (p. 2) It is unfortunate that these aspects, which are at the core of a liberal education, have received such little attention in colleges and universities. In large part, many faculty members believe that spiritual issues have no place in the academy and that students spirituality (or religion) is none of our business. However, this belief is in contrast to the fact that colleges and universities are already deeply involved with students personal lives through such varied activities as academic advising, orientation, residential living, multicultural workshops, and freshman 101 courses. Such activities necessarily touch on students purposes, hopes, dreams, aspirations, values, beliefs, and other spiritual matters. Further, the mission statements of colleges and universities frequently include a commitment to value-laden student outcomes like character, social responsibility, honesty, and citizenship (Astin et al., 2010, p. 5). These authors further stated that, To ignore the spiritual side of students and facultys lives is to encourage a kind of fragmentation and a lack of authenticity, where students and faculty act either as if they are not spiritual beings, or as if their spiritual side is irrelevant to their vocation or work. Within such an environment, academic endeavors can become separated from students most deeply felt values. This fragmentation is further encouraged by those who believe that higher education should concern itself only with students cognitive development- thinking, reasoning, memorizing, critical analysis, and the like- and that the affective or emotional side of the students life is not relevant to the work of the university. (p. 7)

480

These authors, however, do not believe that there is any such thing as pure cognition that can be considered in isolation from affect; on the contrary, it would appear that our thoughts and our reasoning are always taking place in some kind of affective bed or context (Astin et al., 2010, p. 7). There also has been a growing concern that, In the past few years, higher education has come under increasing criticism for what many see as its impersonal fragmented approach to undergraduate education. Growing numbers of educators are calling for a more holistic education, pointing to the need to connect mind and spirit and to return to the values of liberal education- an education that examines learning and knowledge in relation to an exploration of self. Such a reinvigorated liberal arts curriculum would, of course, pay much closer attention to the existential questions that we know are prominent in students minds. At the same time, we have seen a movement gradually emerging in higher education where many academics find themselves actively searching for meaning and trying to discover ways to make their lives and their institutions more whole. This movement likely reflects a growing concern with recovering a sense of meaning in American society more generally. The growing unease about our institutions and our society has led some of us to start talking much more openly about spirituality. (Astin et al., 2010, p. 7) Many students today are expressing high expectations that college will help them develop emotionally and spiritually. This may change and deepen the role that college plays in students lives. Incorporating spiritual development into university life would likely have a profound effect on our future leaders. Since higher education is responsible for educating the next generation of leaders, it is reasonable to ask: what kinds of people will our global society need? It goes without saying that technical knowledge and technical skills are becoming increasingly important for ones effective functioning in modern society, but technical knowledge alone will not be adequate for dealing with societys most pressing problems: violence, poverty, crime, divorce, substance abuse, and the religious, national, and ethnic conflicts that continue to plague our country and our world. At root, these are problems of the spirit, problems that call for greater self-awareness, self-understanding, equanimity, empathy, and concern for others (Astin et al., 2010, p. 8).

481

According to the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA (2005), students who embark on a spiritual quest during college become more caring, more tolerant, and more connected with others. This study also found that spiritual growth enhances other college outcomes, such as academic performance, psychological well-being, leadership development, and satisfaction with college. Several specific experiences that contributed to students spiritual growth include study abroad, interdisciplinary studies, and service learning. These activities contribute to spiritual development because they expose students to new and diverse people, cultures, and ideas. Spiritual development is also enhanced if students engage in inner work through activities such as meditation or self-reflection, or if their professors actively encourage them to explore questions of meaning and purpose (Astin et al., 2010, p. 10). Lindholm, Millora, Schwartz, and Spinosa (2011) surveyed institutions that have embarked on serving students spiritual needs. They list various programs and initiatives at colleges and universities nationwide that have incorporated fields of study, coursework, workshops, seminars, services, events, guest speakers, community service, and activities that cater to the spiritual development of students as well as staff and faculty. Simply having some kind of dialogue on campus on the subject of spirituality has proven to have a positive impact on students and faculty, as ideas and beliefs are exchanged in an open and respectful setting.

482

Another fact worth noting is that, at one time, USIU planned to build a World Religious Studies Center, dedicated to promoting the shared beliefs, teachings, and practices of the great world religions. The emphasis of the Center will be to find that which unifies the religions of the world and to emphasize their common goals. It is through knowledge of other traditions that we gain understanding. It is through understanding that we become free of fear, and if we are free of fear, then we can be free of hate and we can begin to cooperate. The great unifying values of the worlds religions are essential to higher education in preparing individuals for living in the world family. (Dil, 2004a, p. 232) It was planned that the Center would draw religious scholars from all over the world to conduct seminars on religion and its role in human affairs. Therefore, by implementing a spiritual development initiative, Alliant not only can fulfill students desire to grow spiritually, it also can continue a longstanding ambition that USIU shared in its pursuit of spiritual and religious cooperation and understanding. Assisting more students to grow spiritually will help to create a new generation of adults who are more caring, more globally aware, and more committed to social justice than previous generations. At the same time, it will enable them to respond with greater equanimity to the many stresses and tensions of our rapidly changing technological society. (Lindholm et al., 2011, p. v) Technology has developed at a life-altering pace. Yet, to truly advance as a society requires people with perspective who are grounded by their principles and belief in helping others. Colleges and universities not only educate peoples minds, but they have a role to play in developing and educating peoples souls. Incorporating spiritual development enhances students experience in higher education. Incorporating programs and initiatives that explore lifes big questions and who we are as human beings adds an enlightening spiritual fulfillment to university life. In

483

addition, connecting this spiritual dimension to the university will create more passion for it. Students, faculty, staff, and alumni will have a greater appreciation for a university that helped them discover something within themselves. Having a deeper (and spiritual) connection to the university can have many positive benefits for the university, including greater word of mouth and awareness, increased donations and giving, increased enrollment, and increased satisfaction. This is something that can distinguish Alliant from the competition and from commuter schools. For-profit competitors dont provide this. State and public institutions in California cant afford to provide this. Alliant can fill this need and add to Alliants identity, whereby it can be not only an institution where students earn a degree toward a profession or career, but also a place where students can discover and answer their calling. Utilizing the Alliant Name One of the key themes of this study involved the name change and dissatisfaction with the name Alliant. As it is too late to change the university name, it is proposed that the university, once and for all, embrace and own its name as part of its institutional identity and strategy. Websters Online Dictionary (2010) defines the word alliant as an ally or confederate. It comes from the word alliance, which is an association, union, or relationship formed for mutual interest between two or more parties, such as organizations, countries, or people. Alliant International University strives to bring diverse students, faculty, and staff together in a harmonious setting, the foundational alliance that the university cultivates. In addition, Alliant should develop alliances with

484

stakeholders outside the university, including, but not limited to: businesses, alumni, community leaders, other colleges and universities, educational organizations and institutes, industries, not-for-profits, schools, government (and governmental agencies), news and publishing organizations, accrediting bodies, and professional associations. It should be the goal of Alliant International University to cultivate strategic alliances with people and organizations outside the university for mutual-benefit relationships. Forming an alliance is a way to build bridges and bring people and ideas together. For example, establishing relationships with foreign universities or language schools could give students more opportunities to study abroad. Partnerships with industry could entail providing continuing and executive education and certificate programs to working professionals. Alliant currently offers several certificate and continuing education programs, but additional programs partnered with industry would be beneficial. For example, creating a partnership with the San Diego County Vintners and Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association could result in a Winery Management program. Partnering with senior community centers could result in creating a Lifelong Learning program for the over-60 population. Partnering with the military could result in creating programs that reintegrate veterans into civilian society and the workforce. Creating partnerships helps bridge theory to practice, which is aligned with Alliants professional practice objective. Such partnerships also could aid in placing students in jobs, internships, or community service opportunities. Alliant should have strong ties to the industries and professions for which it prepares its students. Industries and organizations benefit by having their knowledge, education, training, and practices

485

incorporated into the curriculum so that students are well-prepared for those jobs and professions. Students benefit from being hired by those organizations through their relationship with the university. Building bridges through alliances should be practiced not only outside the university, but also within it. Some of the interviewees in the study, particularly those in faculty positions, expressed a desire to work with members of faculty in different departments. They remarked that faculty members often work in silos within a department without ever interacting with faculty members in other departments, which contradicts the perception that the professors are part of a collective university community. There are many opportunities for faculty members of various disciplines and backgrounds to collaborate and work together on various projects and endeavors, such as research, programming, or consulting. Alliant currently has several dual programs for clinical and industrialorganizational psychology, a joint Masters in business and Masters in public administration, and a joint Masters in business administration and industrialorganizational psychology. There are, however, many additional opportunities for dual degrees and joint programs that Alliant can create, using the programs that it offers. For example, because Alliant now has a law school, a common joint degree is a Jurisdoctorate in Law and an MBA. Perhaps incorporating strategic management courses and concepts into Alliants Educational Administration, leadership and management programs also could create an exceptional opportunity. Alliant can build alliances within the university by creatively utilizing and combining its current programs and fields of

486

study in new ways as well as creating new programs that synergistically fit together, such as a peace studies program. Programs and studies that are interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and integrated build bridges across disciplines and fields, which is proven to be beneficial for students, faculty, and bodies of research. A further mechanism for collaboration is the creation of research centers and institutes, which Alliant has already begun to do with such endeavors as the Rockway Institute for LGBT research. This kind of activity should continue and expand across all of Alliants programs and fields so that knowledge and scholarship can be disseminated and new areas of inquiry can be explored as alliances are forged across disciplines and professions. In sum, building bridges both within and outside the university will help Alliant achieve its professional practice objective of connecting what goes on inside the classroom with the real world as well as help bring people and disciplines together to solve real-world problems in new and creative ways. This will require entrepreneurial, strategic, and outside-the-box thinking and leadership to utilize and align Alliants strengths and create alliances to others who can help make the university stronger and more competitive. To succeed in today's collaborative, consumer-driven, networked economy and world, Alliant must build alliances and forge strategic relationships as it paves its way into the future. Kaizen and the Future of Alliant International University Kaizen, a Japanese word for continuous improvement, seems to be an ongoing theme that has prevailed at the university throughout the years, even through Alliants

487

difficult times. During the merger of CSPP and USIU, many mistakes were made, and serious consequences resulted. Yet, despite these challenging times, Alliant has greatly improved itself. Today, the university continues to prepare its students for professional careers of service and leadership in psychology, education, business, law and forensic studies. Alliant also has recently improved its look and feel by creating a consistent institutional identity that includes a new university seal and logo, a new university website and portal, and a new multi-color palette and template system for all of its communication materials. Alliant also has improved its communication efforts. Lack of communication and soliciting of input was a major complaint among faculty, staff, and students during the merger. Today, Alliant regularly invites input and feedback from the university community through the use of such tools as online surveys and forums, panel discussions, town hall meetings, networking mixers, and focus groups. Creating multiple channels and ways people can voice their concerns and opinions has proven to be successful in opening the lines of communication and, overall, has been well-received by the university community. Although the university has not completed its revamping activities, it has come a long way in identifying ways that it can improve its public image and communication efforts. Alliant still, however, has a long way to go in conceptualizing, institutionalizing, and communicating its identity, both inside and outside the university. Institutional identity is an allusive term that can be difficult to convey. Often, it is the way a place feels to those who are part of it; and, unless you are a part of it, you will never really

488

know how it feels. Identity is rooted in culture, and culture takes years to shape. Both CSPP and USIU had strong institutional cultures with rich, unique histories that formed their identities. Because forming an identity is such a long process, often unintentional and even difficult to control, and Alliant is still a relatively new institution on its own, Alliants identity is still in the process of being shaped. CSPP and USIU were very successful in creating a strong campus community, culture, and climate which, over time, resulted in a deep sense of shared institutional identity. A common word that people from both CSPP and USIU used to describe their campus cultures and communities was tight-knit. This likely has to do with the fact that each campus was relatively small; therefore, a sense of closeness and intimacy was developed within the campus. What made the campus a tight-knit community for me was the friendships I gained as I became more active in student life, with activities such as student government, the Envoy news publication, athletics, and other student clubs and organizations. There were always new opportunities and ways to become involved in the campus community, and it was through these groups and associations that university life was so enjoyable and enriching. I dont know what Alliant envisions its campus community to be like in the years ahead, but I hope that it is similar to the kind of climate and culture I was able to experience because it was so rewarding for me. It also made me feel a strong sense of identity and loyalty to Alliant, the more involved I became. Perhaps it is nave or wishful thinking on my part to hope that Alliant decides to, one day, bring back athletics and revitalize its on-campus residence life. After all, resources are tight, and the university is

489

going to allocate its money toward aspects that are needed for educating students, such as technology and faculty salaries. Still, Alliant shouldnt ignore the fact that part of what has made it great goes beyond the classroom, and I hope that the administration supports providing its students with co- and extra-curricular activities that help to create a tightknit, vibrant campus community that can eventually evolve into a strong sense of identity and loyalty to Alliant. Having a vibrant campus community is yet another aspect that can set Alliant apart from its for-profit, commuter school competitors. In addition, if it is true that the more involved one becomes with their university, the more they care and want it to succeed, then more students may be willing to give back as alumni through donations, referrals, or other means of philanthropic support. However, this needs closer examination and research to truly understand what motivates graduates to give back to their university, especially if they have outstanding student loans. Nonetheless, it is worth looking into, and it is likely true that students who had positive experiences at their university are more inclined to give back to it than students whose relationship with the university did not extend beyond their coursework. Again, this topic needs further study, and perhaps a dissertation on campus involvement and alumni giving would be a good topic to do on Alliant. It also should be noted that financial giving is not the only means for alumni to give back. With the current, widespread use of social networking and media, the opportunities for alumni involvement are endless. To that end, graduates are more likely to get involved in helping their alma mater if they felt something special for their

490

university. This is why it is important for Alliant to cultivate a strong sense of community and school spirit among students and the university community in general. A strong sense of camaraderie and enthusiasm for the university is the key to its success and survival. People need to be passionate about their university, and Alliant needs to improve ways to engage the community and instill a sense of pride and commitment. Stocum (2010) stated, School spirit translates into higher expectations of ones self and surroundings, pushing for positive changes at the university and abroad (para. 3). Having a positive university experience while in school fosters nostalgia later on as alumni. For Alliant to create alliances with its alumni, it needs to ensure that students enjoy their time at their university when they are there. The final recommendation to Alliant International University is to continue to find new ways to attract and incentivize students to enroll and continue at Alliant while reducing the cost to study there. Alliant has recently developed some new financial aid and scholarship opportunities, including a merit-based Direct Success Scholarship Program for undergraduates in addition to its scholarships based on military veteran status, diversity, minority, disadvantaged, and underserved populations; donor scholarships; an employer tuition matching program; and campus work study opportunities. Alliant also has a referral program where students receive tuition discounts if they are referred by a current student or alumnus. All of these programs are important in helping students afford a college and graduate education at Alliant. In a recent television interview, the university president said that Alliant is working on reducing the price of its undergraduate tuition so that it compares to tuition rates at public

491

and state universities. This is exceptional news for prospective undergraduates. Additionally, Alliant announced a staff reorganization in the fall of 2012 in an effort to broaden the scope of responsibilities of staff positions to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and lower tuition rates. Making college and graduate school affordable is important, and Alliant should continue its efforts in this area. Another strategy that would help students lower their tuition costs would be a recruitment program, whereby current Alliant students receive tuition discounts by bringing in other students. This type of incentive could prove to be an effective program for increasing Alliants enrollment. In addition to bringing new students to the university, Alliant should also create a reward system for students who continue their education at the university. For example, if an undergraduate student decides to earn a graduate degree at Alliant, he or she could receive a tuition discount as part of a loyalty appreciation program from the university. This type of program would convey to students that Alliant values their commitment to continuing their education at the university. A program such as this also could increase enrollment at the graduate level and provides an additional incentive for students to want to continue at Alliant. This program would help achieve the goal of the undergraduate programs feeding into the graduate program if more undergraduates were incentivized to continue their studies at Alliant International University. This type of loyalty program could also be extended to alumnis coming back to school and doing a certificate program or continuing education, as well. Basically, any student who decides to pursue additional education at Alliant should be rewarded with a tuition discount.

492

Lastly, leaders of the university should think about one question when making decisions regarding the universitys future: Would I send my own child to Alliant International University? If the answer is no, then they need to determine what Alliant is lacking and work to improve that. If the answer is yes, then they need to continue to build upon that strength. The bottom line is that university leaders should want to send their own child to Alliant International University. In summary, Alliant International University has done much to improve its identity, image and communications system since the merger. As a way to strengthen Alliants identity, it is recommended that Alliant foster a vibrant student life campus community as well as incorporate a spiritual development initiative to allow students and the university community an opportunity to explore lifes big questions. In terms of making Alliant more competitive, it is recommend that the university implement a strategic planning process and forge alliances with industry, government, alumni, and community and cultivate mutually beneficial relationships. Creating new programs and partnerships could result in new and unique fields of study that Alliant can add to its offerings. Alliant should continue to find ways to make its education more affordable, as it has been doing with adding new scholarship programs. In addition, Alliant should explore a recruitment program for current students, along with a loyalty program for students who continue their education at the university as a way to incentivize and reward them. Finally, leaders of the university should ask themselves whether they would be happy to send their own child to Alliant.

493

Concluding Remarks Regarding the Merger The research model in this study focused on the different cultures/identities, leadership styles, and perceptions of environment that USIU and CSPP brought to the merger. In terms of perception of the environment, USIU needed a bailout, while CSPP was looking to diversify its offerings. CSPP determined that a merger with a university that offered various programs would be an opportunity for this strategy. However, USIU had a greater sense of urgency than did CSPP, as USIU needed to find a partner to keep the university solvent. Fortuitously, CSPP was exploring diversification when the opportunity of acquiring USIU surfaced. The leadership styles of both institutions differed, including the styles of those at the helm. The USIU president appeared to be more inclusive with the USIU community, as he regularly invited students, faculty, and staff to his home, was often seen attending university events and activities, and had established a strong sense of trust and loyalty among his constituents. He also focused on building USIUs culture and identity and instilling a sense of passion and commitment for the university. The CSPP/Alliant University president, who became the AIU president, was viewed as having an exclusive leadership style, as she was distant from the campuses and the day-to-day activities and seemed to focus only on major decision making. This apparent lack of involvement did not instill a sense of trust and loyalty among the university constituents, and eventually people turned against her when the faculty gave her a vote of no confidence. In terms of differences in culture and identity, CSPP and USIU seemed to have similar missions and visions and a commitment to diversity. However, in reality, the

494

cultures and identities of the institutions were quite different, as evidenced by the clash of cultures and the prolonging of the integration. These differences were finally put aside when WASC issued the Show Cause sanction and all were forced to unite in a common cause to save the institution from closing. It was during this time that discussions were held regarding a new, combined identity for the university and what constituents valued. Eventually, I-MERIT was created, which brought together the two sides of internationalism and multiculturalism and a revitalized commitment to diversity. If these differences or gaps were assigned a numerical value based on the greatest to the least in terms of being different from each other, on a scale of 1 to 3 with 1 being the least different and 3 being the most, perception of environment would be a 3 due to the fact that USIU needed a bailout to survive and CSPP was planning to grow and diversify. Leadership would be rated a 2 because leadership styles were so different in terms of being inclusive versus exclusive. Culture and identity would be rated a 1 because, even though the cultures and identities were different, they integrated in later years, after the Show Cause order was issued and I-MERIT was created. See Figure 3 for an illustration of these differences.

495

USIU Culture & Identity Gap = 1

Alliant University Culture & Identity

Leadership Style
Perception of Environment

Gap = 2
Gap = 3 AIU Change Outcomes
Perception of Success

Leadership Style
Perception of Environment

Figure 3. Concluding Research Model The success of the merger was determined by the interviewees. Most of the interviewees agreed that the merger was a success simply because the university is still in existence today, even though not every aspect of the merger was successful. Much was lost in the first years of the merger, including talent, resources, money, prestige, and identity. However, much can be gained in the years to come as this institution finds new and creative ways to integrate and combine its historical identities and position itself for the future. Others who are considering an institutional merger should focus on the reasons for the merger (perception of environment) as well as ensure that effective leadership is put in place to manage the implementation and that the cultures and identities are addressed and integrated as early as possible.

496

Research Process: An Evaluation Qualitative research methods that involve case studies such as these can be very time consuming in nature and do not always allow for straightforward answers to research questions. However, the use of multiple avenues of collecting data can aid in triangulation. For example, in this case, the use of institutional documents and accreditation reports made it easier to triangulate the research by providing factual documentation and information. Another positive attribute of the research methods was the interview process. In most cases, particularly with faculty interviewees, the participants were very open and appeared to give their honest and authentic view of the merger experience. Therefore, interviewers can rely on faculty to give their opinion because critiquing is part of what they do for a living. Of course, there are limitations in studies such as these. In this case, there were people who were involved in the merger who did not want to participate in the study because they were exhausted or burnt out from all the time, effort, energy, and emotional strain they had exerted for the merger. However, the majority of the decision makers were open to being interviewed and participate in the study, and each interviewee provided in-depth, qualitative information relative to the case. Because ten years had passed since the merger took place, the answers that participants gave may have been different had they had been interviewed either during or immediately after the merger. Interviewees may have felt more strongly about certain things or events if the timing of the study had been different. Because it had been so many years, however, interviewees had more time to contemplate the experience and were able articulate it in a way that would have been more difficult had they been

497

experiencing or recently experienced the event during the study. It would be interesting to note the differences or similarities in interviewee answers both during the merger and many years later. Future Research Never before has the higher education sector been faced with so many rapidly developing changes. Forces such as shifting student demographics, new technologies, commercialization, competition, rising costs, public scrutiny, globalization, and market influences have added to an increasingly difficult time for colleges and universities. To meet these demands and challenges, many institutions have engaged, or considered engaging, in merger or acquisition as a responsive strategy. The field of institutional mergers and acquisitions deserves much attention, particularly in the area of higher education, that have strained resources in a competitive market that is continuously evolving. Mergers and acquisitions are just one of the scenarios that are taking place as institutions strive to meet the changing demands of students in an interconnected, knowledge-based world economy. To provide information to those who are engaging in or considering a merger or acquisition as an institutional strategy, additional research, both quantitative and qualitative, must be conducted to take advantage of lessons learned by previous institutions.

498

REFERENCES

References Abu-Rahma, A. (1999). The relationship among national culture, strategic aggressiveness, capability and financial performance: The case of banks in Jordan and the United States (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). United States International University, San Diego, CA. Abu-Rahma, A. (2009). Contingent leadership style depends on conditions. Leadership Excellence Magazine, 26(4). AIU President. (2001, September 14). A message from the president. Envoy, p. 1. Akatcherian, C. (2001). Mergers and acquisition: Why do they fail? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA. Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13-17. Albino, J. E. (1992). Strategy: The dirty word women must learn. Educational Record, 73(2), 47-51. Albino, J. E. (2001). Judith E. N. Albino. In A. N. O'Connell (Ed.), Models of Achievement: Reflections of Eminent Women in Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 219-237). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Alfaro, J. R. (1994, October 17). Home away from home. Envoy, p. 7. Alfred, R. L. (2006). Managing the big picture in colleges and universities: From tactics to strategy. Westport, CT: Praeger. Allen, B. J., & Tompkins, P. K. (1997). Vocabularies of motives in a crisis of academic leadership: "Hell hath no fury..." In B. D. Sypher (Ed.), Case studies in organizational communication 2: Perspectives on contemporary work life (pp. 5367). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Alliant International University. (2009). Alliant History. Retrieved from http://www.alliant.edu Altbach, P. G., Berdahl, R. O., & Gumport, P. J. (Eds.). (2005). Higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. American Association of University Professors (1982). On institutional mergers and acquisitions. Academe, March-April, 1a-3a.

500

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Andrade, G., Mitchell, M., & Stafford, E. (2001). New evidence and perspectives on mergers. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 103-120. Ansoff, H. I. (1968). Corporate strategy: An analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Ansoff, H. I. (1979). Strategic management. Hong Kong: The Macmillan Press. Ansoff, H. I., & McDonnell, E. (1990). Implanting strategic management (2nd ed.). London, UK: Prentice Hall Europe. Antoniou, P. H. (2004). The living legacy of USIU. In A. Dil (Ed.), Intercultural education: Reminiscences of U.S. International University (Vol. I, pp. 117-119). San Diego, CA: Takshila Research University. Antoniou, P. H., & Lewis, A. (2004). Strategic management: Introduction to the Ansoffian approach. Ann Arbor, MI: XanEdu Original Works. Appelbaum, S. H., Gandell, J., Yortis, H., Proper, S., & Francois, J. (2000). Anatomy of merger: Behavior of organizational factors and processes throughout the preduring- post-stages (Part 1). Management Decision, 39(9), 649-661. Ashby, T. M. (2002). Organizational culture integration and information technology integration: A theoretical model of the perceived linkage to success of mergers and acquisitions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, Los Angeles, CA. Association for the Study of Higher Education. (2009, January 18). Council on International Higher Education (CIHE). Retrieved from http://www.ashe.ws/ Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., & Lindholm, J. A. (2010). Cultivating the spirit: How college can enhance students inner lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W., & Scherrei, R. A. (1980). Maximizing leadership effectiveness: Impact of administrative style on faculty and students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Atkinson, P., & Coffey, A. (2002). Revisiting the relationship between participant observation and interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (p. 804). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures (pp. 61-74). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 501

Austin, L. (1972, June 7). Pasadena College will relocate in San Diego: Church of the Nazarene's School buys Cal Western Site; students there protest. The LA Times, p. A3. Baldridge, J. V., & Deal, T. (1983). The basics of change in educational organizations. In J. V. Baldridge & T. Deal (Eds.), The dynamics of organizational change in education (pp. 38-59). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Banks, B. (2001, January 26). U.S.I. who? Envoy, p. 5. Bargh, C., Bocock, J., Scott, P., & Smith, D. (2000). University leadership: The role of the chief executive. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Bates, L. J., & Santerre, R. E. (2000). A time series analysis of private college closures and mergers. Review of Industrial Organization, 17, 267-276. Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1977). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bekerian, D. A., & Levey, A. B. (2005). Applied psychology: Integrating theory and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Benezet, L. T. (1983). College groups and the Claremont example. In L. Wilson (Ed.), Emerging patterns in American higher education (pp. 199-212). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Bengtsson, A. M. (1992). Managing mergers and acquisitions: A European perspective. Hants, UK: Gower. Bensimon, E. M. (1990). The new president and understanding the campus as a culture. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures (pp. 75-86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Berkovitch, E., & Narayanan, M. P. (1993). Motives for takeovers: An empirical investigation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 28, 347-361. Bernardini, P. J., Ahmad, S., & McGowan, J. T. (1993, June 8). Introduction to the C.I.S. Envoy, p. 15. Bernile, G. (2006). The rhetoric of mergers: Analysis of insiders' synergies forecasts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester, NY.

502

Berquist, W. H., & Pawlak, K. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the academy: Revised and expanded edition of the four cultures of the academy (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bess, J. L. (Ed.). (1984). College and university organization: Insights from the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: New York University Press. Bingham, W. V., & Moore, B. V. (1959). How to Interview (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the college presidency. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bliskell, M. (2003, February 7). Rumors of cutting undergraduate program unfolded. Envoy, p. 2. Blumenstock, K. (1980, January 21). The beach boys on blades. Sports Illustrated, pp. 94-99. Blumenstyk, G. (2000, December 15). U.S. International U. will merge with Alliant. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A45. Bohlin, N., Daley, E., & Thomson, S. (2000). Successful post-merger integration: Realizing the synergies. Handbook of Business Strategy, 1(1), 225-231. Bosworth, S. R. (1992). Adaptation and survival in changing conditions: The international context. Journal of Tertiary Education Administration, 14(2), 106139. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bragg, S. M. (2009). Mergers and acquisitions: A condensed practitioner's guide. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Bridges, W. M. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Brinkman, P. T. (2000). The economics of higher education: Focus on cost. New Directions for Institutional Research, 106, 5-16. Brinkman, P. T., & Leslie, L. (1986). Economics of scale in higher education: Sixty years of research. Review of Higher Education, 1(1), 1-28.

503

Browne, L. E., & Rosengren, E. S. (Eds.). (1987). The merger boom. Boston, MA: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Brown, M. (2001, May 4). IFF caps off week of USIU school spirit. Envoy, p. 1. Bryson, J. M. (2004). Strategic planning for public and non-profit: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bugliarello, G., & Urrows, H. (1976). Planning and evaluating an academic merger and making it work: Final report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. New York, NY: Polytechnic Institute of New York. Buono, A. F., & Bowditch, J. L. (1989). The human side of mergers and acquisitions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Burke, T. (2009). Planning for contraction. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/09/29/burke Bush, T., & Coleman, M. (2000). Leadership and strategic management in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cai, Y. (2006). A case study of academic staff integration in a post-merger Chinese university. Tertiary Education Management, 12, 215-226. Cairns, B., Harris, M., & Hutchison, R. (2003, September). Key findings on voluntary sector mergers. Birmingham, UK: Centre for Voluntary Action Research, Aston Business School. California Western School of Law. (2008). Our history. Retrieved from http://www.cwsl.edu/about/ourhistory Cameron, K. (1978). Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 604-632. Campus transition team here to help. (2002, February 22). Envoy, pp. 1-2. Cannon, C. (2004). The origin and promise of USIU. In A. Dil (Ed.), Intercultural education: Reminiscences of U.S. International University (Vol. I, pp. 63-79). San Diego, CA: Takshila Research University. Cannon, J. B. (1983). Merger: Its impact upon participating members of the faculty and administration at two public institutions of higher education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Clark University, Worcester, MA.

504

Carleton, R., & Lineberry, C. S. (2004). Achieving post-merger success: A stakeholder's guide to cultural due diligence, assessment, and integration. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Carlson, B. E. (1994). Presidential leadership and the mutual-growth concept. In J. Martin & J. E. Samels (Eds.), Merging colleges for mutual growth (pp. 59-74). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Carmen, J. M. (1990). Must decline lead to death? A case study of two Catholic women's colleges as they evolved through life cycle phases (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Caroppo, C. (2004). Multicultural education: The USIU promise. In A. Dil (Ed.), Intercultural education: Reminiscences of U.S. International University (Vol, I, pp. 159-164). San Diego, CA: Takshila Research University. Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). Managing mergers, acquisitions, and strategic alliances: Integrating people and cultures (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: ButterworthHeinemann. Chaffee, E. E. (1985). The concept of strategy: From business to higher education. In J. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. I, pp. 133164). New York, NY: Agathon Press. Chaffee, E. E., & Tierney, W. G. (1988). Collegiate culture and leadership strategies. New York, NY: Macmillan. Chambers, G. (1983a, December/January). The dilemma of college mergers. AGB Reports, pp. 14-18. Chambers, G. S. (1983b). Approaching college merger: A manual with case documents. University of Bridgeport, CT. Chambers, G. S. (1986). Merger between private colleges (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester, NY. Chawszczewski, S. A. (1998). The quest for institutional identity: An historical analysis of the Knox College community (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO. Cheit, E. F. (1971). The new depression in higher education: A study of financial conditions at 41 colleges and universities. Berkeley, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Chen, M. J. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review, 21, 100-34.

505

Chiang, M. C. (1990). Changes in organizational effectiveness and culture resulting from mergers: An analysis of academic department mergers in nine U.S. states (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New York at Albany. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Clark, B. R. (1970). The distinctive college. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Clark, B. R. (1972). An organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 178-184. Clark, B. R. (1980, March). Academic culture (YHERG-42). New Haven, CT: Yale University, Mellon Foundation. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York, NY: Elsevier Science. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1986). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 11. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others dont. New York, NY: HarperBusiness. Colloquium leaves some questions unanswered. (2003, April 7). Envoy, pp. 1-2. Contractor, F. J., & Lorange, P. (Eds.). (2002). Cooperative strategies and alliances. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Cooper, T. (1985, April 19). USIU looks to world's courts like its campus: Gulls tennis team sports decidedly foreign affair. The LA Times, p. B2. Cowin, K., & Moore, G. (1996). Critical success factors for merger in the UK voluntary sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations, 7(1), 66-86. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

506

Cripps, A., & Carter, M. (2006, November). Merger: A brief guide to the literature for voluntary and community sector organizations. London, UK: London Housing Foundation. Cross, D. W. (1998). Evolution or revolution: Creating a team-based organization. In S. H. Frost (Ed.), Using teams in higher education: Cultural foundations for productive change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Crowther, W. B. (1994). What you should know about non-profit mergers. Non-profit World, 12(4), 4-5. Cyert, R. M. (1981). Management science and university management. In J. A. Wilson (Ed.), Management science: Applications to academic administration (pp. 27-39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dahl, J., & Skodvin, O. J. (2002). The importance of geography and culture in mergers: A Norwegian institutional case study. Higher Education, 44, 73-90. Daniel, T. A., & Metcalf, G. S. (2001). The management of people in mergers and acquisitions. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Dank, V. (1990, June 15). Graduation speech of student council Chairman. USIU News, p. 3. Davidson, K. (1984, November 14). Cal Western-UCSD merger off. The LA Times, p. SD A1. Dawson, N. (2003, April 25). A salute to United States International University. Envoy, p. 3. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Denton, D. E. (Ed.). (1974). Existentialism and phenomenology in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Teachers College Press. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K. (1982). Contributions of anthropology and sociology to qualitative research methods. In E. Kuhns & S. V. Martarana (Ed.), Qualitative methods for institutional research (pp. 18-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2003). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

507

Desmond, M. R. (2009, April 21). The coming college bubble? In Forbes.com. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27363934/#.UVNolzerHcw Deubell, R. G. (1984). The threat of college and university closings in the next twenty years, and the evaluation of potential impediments to merger, one strategy for college survival (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, OH. Devlin, J. K. (1998). The identity of an American Catholic college in transition: A study of Iona College (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fordham University, NY. Dibsie, P. (1993, June 4). Dr. William C. Rust, 77, dies: Was controversial founder of USIU. San Diego Union Tribune, p. B1. Dicenso, D. (2005). Prelude to a merger: Predicting a merger with financial characteristics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fordham University, NY. Did you know? (1989, October 6). USIU News, p. 3. Dil, A. (2004a). My life and times at United States International University. In A. Dil (Ed.), Intercultural education: Reminiscences of U.S. International University (Vol. I, pp. 207-328). San Diego, CA: Takshila Research University. Dil, A. (2004b). A short historical background of United States International University. In A. Dil (Ed.), Intercultural education: Reminiscences of U.S. International University (Vol. I, pp. 29-54). San Diego, CA: Intercultural Forum: Takshila Research University. Dil, A. (2004c). What I learned at USIU. In A. Dil (Ed.), Intercultural education: Reminiscences of U.S. International University (Vol. I, pp. 329-416). San Diego, CA: Takshila Research University. Dil, A. (2007). Intercultural learning: My students at U.S. International University: Vol. II. San Diego, CA: Takshila Research University. Dill, D. D. (1982). The management of academic culture. Higher Education, 11, 303-320. Dressel, P. L. (1981). Administrative leadership: Effective and responsive decision making in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Drucker, P. F. (2001). The Essential Drucker. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Duderstadt, J. J. (1997). The view from the helm: Leading the American University during an era of change. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

508

Dunham, J. L. (1976). Successful versus unsuccessful acquisitions and mergers: A multivariate analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). San Diego State University, CA. Durrell, L. (1961). The Alexandria quartet (Justine, Balthazar, Mountolive, and Clea). New York, NY: Cardinal Pocket Books. Eastman, J., & Lang, D. (2001). Mergers in higher education: Lessons from theory and experience. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Eckel, P. D., & Kezar, A. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460. Ensari, N., & Murphy, S. E. (2003). Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and attribution of charisma to the leader. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 52-66. Famous last words from graduating students. (1991, June 14). Envoy, p. 4. Farnsworth, K. A. (2007). Leadership as service: A new model for higher education in a new century. Westport, CT: Praeger. Feldman, M. L. (2000, June 22). Avoiding the seven deadly sins of post merger integration. Bank Accounting and Finance, 1-4. Fielden, J., & Markham, L. (1997). Learning lessons from mergers in higher education (CHEMS Paper No. 17). Retrieved from www.acu.ac.uk/chems/publications First impressions. (1990, September 21). USIU News, p. 3. Fordyce, A. (2002a, May 10). Pending vote officially changes name to Alliant. Envoy, p. 1. Fordyce, A. (2002b, October 11). Mexico: Adventure next door. Envoy, p. 2. Forsyth, D. (1990, September 7). New era for USIU, but problems need answers. USIU News, p. 3. Fox, J. (2008). A multiple case study of community college presidents: Perceptions of leadership demands and competencies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Idaho, Moscow. Frady, C. (1990, May 18). Those were the days. USIU News, p. 6. Frank, G. (1980, May 18). U.S.I.O.U.: A lesson on how to lose half a campus. USIU sold half of the land it received from the government. The LA Times, p. SD A1.

509

Frost, S. H., & Gillespie, T. W. (1998). Organizations, culture, and teams: Links toward genuine change. In S. H. Frost (Ed.), Using teams in higher education: cultural foundations for productive change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gaff, J. G. (1970). The cluster college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Galpin, T. J., & Herndon, M. (2007). The complete guide to mergers and acquisitions: Process tools to support M&A integration at every level (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gancel, C., Rogers, I., & Raynaud, M. (2002). Successful mergers, acquisitions and strategic alliances: How to bridge corporate cultures. New York, NY: McGrawHill. Gaughan, P. A. (2002). Mergers and acquisitions: An overview. In L. G. Bryer & M. Simensky (Eds.), Intellectual property assets in mergers and acquisitions (pp. 17). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gembrowski, S. (2000, November 23). USIU, Alliant universities to merge: Advantages of scale, visibility are foreseen. San Diego Union Tribune, p. B1. Gemmill, B. (1998, April 13). Editorial. Envoy, p. 2. George Gafford offers a lifetime of law and community service. (2009, October 7). La Jolla Light. Retrieved from http://www.lajollalight.com/2009/10/07/georgegafford-offers-a-lifetime-of-law-and-community-service/ Gilchrist, V. J., & Williams, R. L. (1999). Key informant interviews. In B. F. Crabtree and W. L. Miller (Ed.), Doing qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 73-85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. New York, NY: Continuum. Global: Trends in higher education studies. (2008, October 18). University World News. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story= 20081017103950474 Goedegebuure, L. C. J. (1992). Mergers in higher education: A comparative perspective. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies. 510

Golbe, D. L., & White, L. J. (1988). A time-series analysis of mergers and acquisitions in the U.S. economy. In A. J. Auerbach (Ed.), Corporate takeovers: Causes and consequences (pp. 265-302). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Golden, D. W. (1980). An alma mater of one's own. Case Currents, 6(1), 50-51. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam. Golensky, M., & Deruiter, G. L. (2003, July). The urge to merge: A multiple-case study. Non-profit Management and Leadership, 169-186. Gonzalez, B. (2009, February 27). David Feldman; school drop out got Ph.D., stressed role of education. The San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/feb/27/1m27feldman235848-davidfeldman/ Goodlad, S. (Ed.). (1983). Economies of scale in higher education. Guildford, UK: Society for Research in Higher Education. Goold, M., & Campbell, A. (1998). Desperately seeking synergy. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 131-43. Gorden, R. L. (1980). Interviewing: Strategy, techniques, and tactics (3rd ed.). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Graham, S. W., & Robinson, D. A. (2002). Leadership development in organizational consulting. In R. L. Lowman (Ed.), The California School of Organizational Studies handbook of organizational consulting psychology: A comprehensive guide to theory, skills, and techniques (pp. 370-395). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Granberry, M. (1990, December 22). Foreclosure fear plunges USIU into Chapter 11. The LA Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1990-12-22/local/me6031_1_foreclosure-fear Grassmuck, K. (1991, September 18). More small colleges merge with larger ones, but some find the process can be painful. Chronicle of Higher Education, A37-A39. Green, J. L., & Jonas, P. M. (1997). Outcomes assessment in higher education linked with strategic planning and budgeting. Shawnee Mission, KS: Strategic Planning/ Management Associates. Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: Robert Greenleaf Center. Grey, Z. H. (1992, October 13). Selling USIU for "peanuts." Envoy, p. 2.

511

Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (Eds.). (2001). Institutional selves: Troubled identities in a postmodern world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Guthrie, M. (2000). Mix, match, merge? Issues and options for charities considering mergers and other partnerships. A VOLPROF Telethon Fellowship Report. Haagenson, K. (2002, May 17). Viva Mexico! Envoy, p. 2. Hackenberg, D. F. (1995, September 4). USIU-Mexico's cultural diversity. Envoy, p. 2. Haddad, D. (1990, December 29). USIU trustees vote to eliminate athletics. Gulls: Men's basketball team gets a reprieve. The LA Times, p. 1. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Harman, G. (1986). Restructuring higher education systems through institutional mergers: Australian Experience. Higher Education, 15(6), 567-586. Harman, G., & Harman, K. (2003). Institutional mergers in higher education: Lessons from international experience. Tertiary Education and Management, 9, 29-44. Harman, K. (2002). Merging divergent campus cultures into coherent educational communities: Challenges for higher education leaders. Higher Education, 44, 91114. Harman, K., & Harman, G. (2008). Strategic mergers of strong institutions to enhance competitive advantage. Higher Education Policy, 21, 99-121. Harris, I., Fisk, L. J., & Rank, C. (1998, January). A portrait of university peace studies in North America and Western Europe at the end of the millennium. The International Journal of Peace Studies, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol3_1/Harris.htm Harris, M., & Hutchison, R. (2001, November). Success factors in non-profit mergers: Lessons from HIV/AIDS agencies in the UK. Paper presented at the meeting of the Organizational Co-operation and Collaboration between Non-profits: Factors for Success, Miami, FL. Hart, N. (2005). Fatal attraction? Mergers and collaborations in the UK higher education sector. Perspectives: Policy & Practice in Higher Education, 9(3), 79-85. Hersey, P. (1984). The situational leader. New York, NY: Warner Books. Hesburgh, T. M. (1977). The presidency: A personal manifesto. In R. W. Heyns (Ed.), Leadership for higher education: The campus view. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. 512

Hiland, M. L. (2003). Non-profit mergers. Consulting to Management, 14(2), 11-15. Hitt, M. A., Harrison, J. S., & Ireland, R. D. (2001). Mergers and acquisitions: A guide to creating value for stakeholders. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hogarty, T. F. (1970). Profits from merger: The evidence of fifty years. St. John's Law Review, 44, 378-391. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Holvino, E., Ferdman, B. M., & Merrill-Sands, D. (2004). Creating and sustaining diversity and inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (pp. 245-276). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Howey, J. (1992, January 21). Make a difference. Envoy, p. 3. Hrebiniak, L. G. (2005). Making strategy work: Leading effective execution and change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton. Hughes, J. M. (1993). Institutional image: Target group perceptions of Sparks State Technical College (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Auburn University, Auburn, AL. Janesick, V. J. (1998). The choreography of qualitative research design. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 14-66). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jaschik, S. (2008, August 25). Will more colleges merge? Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/25/mergers Jemison, D. B., & Sitkin, S. B. (1986). Corporate acquisitions: A process perspective. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 145-163. Johnson, G. (1989, July 13). Major concerns panel threatens USIU with accreditation loss. The LA Times, p. 1. Johnson, S. (1998) Who moved my cheese? An amazing way to deal with change in your work and in your life. New York, NY: G. P. Putnams Sons. Jones, L. (1980, May 18). Critics label USIU's prize program a diploma mill. The LA Times, p. SD A1. Jones, S. (1990a, December 21). USIU files for Chapter 11 shield. San Diego Union Tribune, p. B1.

513

Jones, S. (1990b, December 29). USIU to slash payroll, athletic program. San Diego Union Tribune, p. B1. Kahn, R. L., & Cannell, C. F. (1958). The dynamics of interviewing: Theory, technique, and cases. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in American higher education. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kelly, L., & Booth, C. (2004). Dictionary of strategy: Strategic management A-Z. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kezar, A., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the "L" word in higher education: The revolution of research on leadership. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kimberly, J. R. & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.). (1984). Managing organizational transitions. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Kipley, D. (2008). A multi-source approach in determining the perceived rated importance on programs, policies, and procedures at a faith-based university (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, San Diego, CA. Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kirkpatrick, C.K. (1990, April 6). From the student editorial board. USIU News, p. 3 Krupar, K. R., & Krupar, J. J. (1998, March). Consider the people-fit issue during mergers. Personnel Journal, 95-98. Kuba, S. A., & Bluestone, H. H. (2002). Integrating diversity content across the curriculum: Evaluation in a clinical graduate program. In E. Davis-Russell (Ed.), The California School of Professional Psychology handbook of multicultural education, research, intervention, and training (pp. 67-87). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass. Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. London, UK: Macmillan. Kuh, G. D. (1993). Appraising the character of a college. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71, 661-668. Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Cultures in American colleges and universities (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Series, No. 1). Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

514

Kusstatscher, V., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). Managing emotions in mergers and acquisitions. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Kvale, Steiner (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kyvik, S. (2002). The merger of non-university colleges in Norway. Higher Education, 44(1), 53-72. La Piana, D. (2000). The non-profit mergers workbook: The leader's guide to considering, negotiating, and executing a merger. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. Labaree, R. V. (2004). The implementation of an academic program merger: Efficiencies of information exchange and restraint under principles of shared governance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Lajoux, A. R. (1998). The art of M&A integration: A guide to merging resources, processes, and responsibilities. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Lang, D. (2002). There are mergers, and there are mergers: The forms of interinstitutional combination. Higher Education Management and Policy, 14(1), 1150. Lang, D. W. (2003). The future of merger. What do we want mergers to do? Efficiency or diversity? Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 33(3), 19-46. Lauer, L. D. (2006). Advancing higher education in uncertain times: Academic institutions are changing fast. And so must the people advancing them. Washington, DC: Council for Advancement and Support of Education. Lauer, R. H., & Lauer, J. C. (2004). Adventures of mind. In A. Dil (Ed.), Intercultural education: Reminiscences of U.S. International University (Vol. I, pp. 84-87). San Diego, CA: Takshila Research University. Lawrence, F. L. (2006). Leadership in higher education: Views from the presidency. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Leahey, T.H. (2012) A history of psychology: From antiquity to modernity (7th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Levin, I., & Gottlieb, J. (2005, Fall/Winter). The role of organization values in providing stability during large-scale organizational change. Bay Area Organization Development Newsletter, 1-8.

515

Levin, I. M., Proctor, D., & Thibault, T. (2001, May/ June). The making of Scansion Health: The bringing together of two Catholic health care cultures was a complex effort. Health Progress, 48-52. Lewis, B. J. (2003, February 21). AIU people poll. Envoy, p. 4. Lewis, L. K. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned organizational change: implementers' targets, sources, and channels for communicating. Management Communication Quarterly, 13(1), 43-75. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lindholm, J.A., Millora, M. L., Schwartz, L. M., & Spinosa, H. S. (2011). A guidebook of promising practices: Facilitating college students spiritual development. Los Angeles, CA: The Regeants of the University of California. Locke, E. A. (1991). The essence of leadership: The four keys to leading successfully. New York, NY: Lexington Books. Locke, W. (2007). Higher education mergers: Integrating organizational cultures and developing appropriate management styles. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(1), 83-102. London campus becomes charter sports member. (1992, February 25). Envoy, p. 2. Lonsway, F. A. (1969). The merger of two colleges. Liberal Education, 322-327. Lorton, G. A. (2006). Factors relating environmental management strategies and performance on environmental issues (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, San Diego, CA. Lubatkin, M. (1983). Mergers and the performance of the acquiring firm. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 43-75. Lwin, N. (2002, May 10). AIU People Poll. Envoy, p. 3. Lynch, J. G., & Lind, B. (2002). Escaping merger and acquisition madness. Strategy & Leadership, 30(2), 5-12. MacAloon, J. J. (1984). Introduction: Cultural performances, culture theory. In J. J. MacAloon (Ed.), Rite, drama, festival, spectacle: Rehearsals toward a theory of cultural performance (pp. 1-15). Philadelphia, PA: Institution for the Study of Human Issues.

516

MacDonald, E. (1999, January 5). SEC crackdown on merger write-off may make some deals more difficult. Wall Street Journal, p. A4. Margolis, S. L. (1998). Organizational identity, future organizational images, and the construction of organizational identification in a merger environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia State University, Atlanta. Markham, J. W. (1955). Survey of the evidence and findings on mergers. In UniversitiesNational Bureau (Ed.), Business concentration and price policy (pp. 139-210). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1998). Joining forces: Making one plus one equal three in mergers, acquisitions, and alliances. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Martin, J., & Samels, J. E. (1994). Merging colleges for mutual growth: A new strategy for academic managers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Martin, J., & Samels, J. E. (2004). Presidential transition in higher education: Managing leadership change. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Martin, J., & Samels, J. E. (Eds.). (2009). Turnaround: Leading stressed colleges and universities to excellence. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Massy, W. F. (Ed.). (1996). Resource allocation in higher education. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Massy, W. F., & Meyerson, J. W. (Eds.). (1992). Strategy and finance in higher education. Princeton, NJ: Peterson's Guides. Mather, B. (2000). Merging interests. London, UK: The Baring Foundation. Mattessich, P. W., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. R. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it work. A review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McAtee, T. (1994, September 20). Sports? at USIU!! Envoy, p. 1. McAtee, T. (1995, April 4). A presidential barbeque. Envoy, p. 1. McBain, L. (2009, July). College and university mergers: Recent trends. AASCU Policy Matters, p. 4.

517

McCaffery, P. (2004). The higher education managers handbook: Effective leadership and management in universities and colleges. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. McCann, J. E., & Gilkey, R. (1988). Joining forces: Creating and managing successful mergers and acquisitions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. McCann, L. G. (1991, October 22). Let's not dig our own grave. Envoy, p. 2. McCann, L. G. (1993a, June 8). Dr. William C. Rust dies at Age 77. Envoy, pp. 1, 13. McCann, L. G. (1993b, June 8). Looking back over a year as president. Envoy, p. 7. McCann, L. G. (1993c, June 8). USIU recognizes student leaders. Envoy, pp. 1, 13. McCormick, D. H. (2001). Non-profit mergers: The power of successful partnerships. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. McDaniel Johnson, M. E. (2007). Managing organizational change in an educational environment: A case study of the merger of two technical colleges (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alabama State University, Montgomery. McLaughlin, T. (1996). Seven steps to a successful non-profit merger. Washington, DC: National Center for Non-profit Boards. McLennan, K. (1991, June 4). President's letter to the university. Envoy, p. 3. Meeks, G. (1977). Disappointing marriage: A study of the gains from merger. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Merton, R.K., Fiske, M. & Kendall, P.L. (1990) The focused interview: A manual of problems and procedures. New York, NY: The Free Press. Miller, R. (2000). How culture affects mergers and acquisitions. Industrial Management, 42, 22-26. Millett, J. D. (1976). Mergers in higher education: An analysis of ten case studies. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management. New York, NY: The Free Press.

518

Miste, P. A. (1994). A retrospective examination of the pros and cons of a successful college merger (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. Modern San Diego. (2010). Modern San Diego: Architect, Lareau. Retrieved from http://www.modernsandiego.com/Lareau.html Monck, A. (2006). Unless we merge we will surely die. Times Higher Education Supplement, 1774(12/22), 16. Morgan, G. (1998). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morgan, N. (1995a, January 12). Oh, the scandals that raged on Point Loma. San Diego Union Tribune, p. A2. Morgan, N. (1995b, May 21). On USIU campus, the founder's name is mud. San Diego Union Tribune, p. A2. Morrill, R. L. (2007). Strategic leadership: Integrating strategy and leadership in colleges and universities. Westport, CT: Praeger. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mulvey, T. M. (1993). An analysis of the mergers of American institutions of higher education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Nahavandi, A., & Malekzadeh, A. (1988). Acculturation in mergers and acquisitions. Academy of Management Review, 13, 79-90. Nahavandi, A., & Malekzadeh, A. R. (1993). Organizational culture in the management of mergers. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership: Creating a compelling sense of direction for your organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Neave, G. (1985). Higher education in a period of consolidation: 1975-1985. European Journal of Education, 20(2/3), 109-125. Needham, E. (1991, October 15). Will USIU die at forty? Envoy, p. 2. Needham, E. (1993, May 25). Current student government members speak on why you should participate in student government. Envoy, p. 2.

519

Nelson, R. L. (1959). Merger movements in American industry, 1895-1956. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Neumann, Y., & Neumann, E. F. (1999). The president and the college bottom line: the role of strategic leadership styles. The International Journal of Educational Management, 13(2), 73-79. Nguyen, H., & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). The effective management of mergers. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(8), 447-454. New student ambassador program starting. (1994, November 1). Envoy, p. 3. Norcross, D. ( 2010, March 13) Cal Western: football and fun. The San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/13/calwestern-football-fun/?print&page=all Nordvall, R. C. (1982). The process of change in higher education institutions. Washington, DC: George Washington University. Olin, M. B. (2005). The institutional mission and identity of an American Catholic college in the competitive higher education market (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University, NY. O'Neil, J. (1993). The paradox of success: When winning at work means losing at life. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam's Sons. O'Neil, J. P., & Barnett, S. (1980). Colleges and corporate change: Merger, bankruptcy, and closure. A sourcebook for trustees and administrators. Princeton, NJ: Conference-University Press. Ott, J. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole. Panepento, P. (2008, Dec. 2). Mergers and alliances: Should more charities consolidate operations? The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://philanthropy.com/article/MergersAlliances-Shou/63265/ Patterson, G. (2000). Finding on economies of scale in higher education: Implications for strategies of merger and alliance. Tertiary Education and Management, 6(4), 259269. Payne, L. (2008). The evidence base on college size and mergers in the further education sector (DIUS Research Report 08-19). London, UK: Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills. Perkins, J. A. (Ed.). (1973). The university as an organization. Berkeley, CA: The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education/McGraw-Hill. 520

Perlman, B., Gueths, J., & Weber, D. A. (1988). The academic entrepreneur: Strategy, innovation, and management in higher education. New York, NY: Praeger. Persico, C. F. (2002). Forward. In E. Davis-Russell (Ed.), The California School of Professional Psychology handbook of multicultural education, research, intervention, and training (pp. xi- xii). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Peters, M. H. (1977). Mergers of institutions of higher education. College and University, 52(2), 202-210. Peterson, M. W., Dill, D. D., & Mets, L. A. (1997). Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic culture and climate. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures (pp. 3-18). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570-581. Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104112. Phadungtin, J. S. (2003). The relationship among merger relatedness, strategic aggressiveness, capability responsiveness, and merger performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, San Diego, CA. Piantanida, M., & Garman, N. B. (1999). Qualitative dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Pittenger, M. (2001, October 19). An open letter from the Dean for Student Affairs. Envoy, p. 1. Pitts, R. A. (1976). Diversification strategies of large diversified firms. Journal of Economics and Business, 28(3), 181-8. Pizano, E. (2001, April 20). USIU, Alliant merger questions answered at Town Hall Meeting. Envoy, p. 5. Point Loma Nazarene University. (2009). University history. Retrieved from http://www.pointloma.edu/universityhistory Pourade, R. F. (1977). City of the dream. San Diego, CA: Copley Press. Prokesch, S. E., & Powell, W. J. (1985, June 3). Do mergers really work? Business Week, 88-91. 521

Pugh, H. W. (2004). The legacy of USIU. In A. Dil (Ed.), Intercultural education: Reminiscences of U.S. International University (Vol. I, pp. 189-196). San Diego, CA: Takshila Research University. Radtke, E. C. (1997). Organizational culture and attitudes toward merger in three public higher education systems (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Reader, H. (2001a, January 26). Fear of the takeover. Envoy, p. 6. Reader, H. (2001b, April 9). USIU, Alliant student body associations meet. Envoy, p. 6. Reader, H. (2001c, June 2). Getting to know our new president. Envoy, pp. 1-2. Reader, H. (2001d, November 19). Students angered over USIU's buyout. Envoy, p. 7. Reader, H. (2002, February 22). Point: Does our president earn too much? Envoy, p. 7. Reaves, M. (2001a, January 12). USIU People poll. Envoy, p. 3. Reaves, M. (2001b, May 18). USIU People poll. Envoy, p. 3. Reed, D. E. (1978). Changes in a small liberal arts college following its merger with a large state university: A case study of the new college merger with the University of South Florida in July of 1975 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee. Rhea, T. C. (2004). Organizational change in community colleges: Perceptions of a merger (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Ristine, J. (1992a, April 9). Former Marine general is commanding USIU recovery. San Diego Union Tribune, p. B1. Ristine, J. (1992b, April 28). Minnesota exec to lead USIU, first goal: Polish local image. San Diego Union Tribune, p. B1. Ristine, J. (1992c, June 17). USIUs graduation: International tassels. San Diego Union Tribune, p. B1. Roest, K. (1999, January 15). 1998: An unforgettable year in Africa. Envoy, p. 2. Ross, B. (2008, December). Cascade's closing strikes blow to Pacific Northwest. Retrieved from http://www.christianchronicle.org Rovit, S., & Lemire, C. (2003, March). Your best M&A strategy. Harvard Business Review, 16-17.

522

Rowley, D. J., Lujan, H. D., & Dolence, M. G. (1997). Strategic change in colleges and universities: Planning to survive and prosper. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rowley, D. J., & Sherman, H. (2001). From strategy to change: Implementing the plan in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rozhon, T. A. (2008). Program expansion as an adaptive strategy: Case studies of three specialized institutions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. R. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ruch, R. S. (2001). Higher Ed, Inc.: The rise of the for-profit university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rucker, R. (2004). Intercultural education: The mission of USIU. In A. Dil (Ed.), Intercultural education: Reminiscences of U.S. International University (Vol. I, pp. 80-82). San Diego, CA: Takshila Research University. Ryan, Y. (2001). Higher education as a business: Lessons from the corporate world. Minerva, 39, 115-135. Salter, M. S., & Weinhold, W. A. (1979). Diversification through acquisition. New York, NY: Free Press. Saran, A. (2002a, April 27). AIU news. Envoy, p. 7. Saran, A. (2002b, June 14). AIU news. Envoy, p. 2. Sathe, V., & Davidson, E. J. (2000). Toward a new conceptualization of culture change. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, and M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 279-296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Satow, R. L. (1975). Value-rational authority and professional organizations: Weber's missing type. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 526-531. Schaedler, J. (1992, August 4). Hays announces the reorganization of USIU's Administrative Structure. Envoy, p. 1. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide: Sense and nonsense about culture change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Scheve, D. (1994, April 25). An artless society is a dead society. Envoy, p. 2.

523

Schmid, H. (1995). Merging non-profit organizations: Analysis of a case study. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 5(4), 377-391. Schmidt, S. (1993, August 14). USIU celebrates bankruptcy rescue. San Diego Union Tribune, p. A2. Schwartz, R. A. (2003). Historical methods. In R. K. Yin (Ed.), Case study research: Design and methods (Rev. ed., pp. 100-101). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Schweiger, D. M., & Walsh, J. P. (1990). Mergers and acquisitions: An interdisciplinary view. In G. R. Ferris and K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 41-107). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press. Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). Fluid, fractured, and distinctive? In search of a definition of organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 143-144. Sehoole, M. T. (2005). The politics of mergers in higher education in South Africa. Higher Education, 50, 159-179. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. London, UK: Harper & Row. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1984). The cultural perspective. In T. J. Sergiovanni & J. E. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture: New perspectives on administrative theory and practice (pp. 1-12). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Shapiro, H. T. (1998). University presidentsThen and now. In W. G. Bown & H. T. Shapiro (Eds.), Universities and their leadership (pp. 65-100). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Shaw, K. A., & Lee, K. E. (1997). Effecting change at Syracuse University: The importance of values, mission, and vision. Metropolitan Universities, 7(4), 23-30. Sherman, A. J., & Hart, M. A. (2006). Mergers and acquisitions from A to Z . New York, NY: American Management Association. Shirley, R. C., & Peters, M. H. (1976). University merger: A case of organizational change. College and University, 51(2), 142-154. Shiskin, K. (1994, October 3). Jumbo! (Hello in Kiswahili). Envoy, pp. 3-4.

524

Shorter-Gooden, K. (2002). Qualitative methods: An essential tool for multicultural psychology. In E. Davis-Russell (Ed.), The California School of Professional Psychology handbook of multicultural education, research, intervention, and training (pp. 123-138). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Shrivastava, P. (2002). Postmerger integration. Organization Studies, 23(2), 211-248. Singer, M. I., & Yankey, J. A. (1991). Organizational metamorphosis: A study of eighteen non-profit mergers, acquisitions and consolidations. Non-profit Management and Leadership, 5(4), 357-369. Sirower, M. L. (1997). The synergy trap. New York, NY: Free Press. Skodvin, O. J. (1999). Mergers in higher educationSuccess or failure? Tertiary Education and Management, 5(1), 63-78. Smart, J. C., & St. John, E. P. (1996). Organizational culture and effectiveness in higher education: A test of the culture type and strong culture hypothesis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 219-241. Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339-358. Somervill, C. Z. (1983). Intra-institutional mergers of academic units: Growth in the context of decline. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Sporn, B. (1996). Managing university culture: An analysis of the relationship between institutional culture and management approaches. Higher Education, 32, 41-61. Stage, F. K., & Manning, K. (Eds.). (2003). Research in the college context: Approaches and methods. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge. Stahl, G. K., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2005). Mergers and acquisitions: Managing culture and human resources. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Stake, R. E. (2003). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 136-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stanford, L. G. (1968). San Diego's L.L.B. (legal lore & the bar): A history of law and justice in San Diego County. San Diego, CA: Law Library Justice Foundation. State of California, Office of Historic Preservation. (2007, October 17). San Diego Modernism Historic Context Statement. San Diego, CA: City of San Diego.

525

Steffen, K. J. (2008). In the wake of merger: Academic program changes in one uppermidwest comprehensive two-year college (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Steiner, P. O. (1975). Mergers: Motives, effects, policies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Stephens, J. (1972) USIU Teams to Maui? The Lahaina Sun. Retrieved from http://www.maui-lahaina-sun.com/teams-to-maui.html Stewart, G. (2003). College mergers: Lessons to be learned from other sectors. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 8(3), 305-328. Stocum, K. (2010, November 4). The importance of school pride: A letter from Adrianne Burns, Director of University Advancement. Retrieved from blogs.missouristate.edu/sga/the-importance-of-school-pride Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strom, S. (2007, Nov. 1). Charities trying mergers to improve bottom line. The New York Times, pp. Retrieved from http://www.philanthropynewyork.org/s_nyrag/bin.asp?CID=7390&DID=17285& DOC=FILE.PDF Strosnider, K. (1998). Private colleges could see more mergers. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(41), A41. Students and staff salute General McLennan. (1992, May 19). Envoy, p. 4. Sullivan, P. A., & Antoniou, P. H. (Eds.). (2006). The H. Igor Ansoff anthology. Escondido, CA: Peter H. Antoniou. Suter, W. N. (2006). Introduction to educational research: A critical thinking approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Swanson, L. (1993). Defining multicultural curriculum in higher education. Journal of International Studies, 2(1), 71-96. Swope, A. J. (1987). Measuring clinical competence in psychology graduate students: A case example. Teaching of Psychology, 14(1), 32-34. Tan, W. (2005). The reconstruction of organizational identity: A case study of a Chinese university (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

526

Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Tetenbaum, T. J. (1999). Beating the odds of merger and acquisition failure: Seven key practices that improve the chance for expected integration and synergies. Organizational Dynamics, 28(2), 22-36. Thayer-Bacon, B. J., & Pack-Brown, S. (1998, April). Collaboration: Diverse voices and contributions (ED 418 943). Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University, Department of Educational Foundations and Inquiry. The arts are coming back at USIU. (1995, July 17). Envoy, p. 2. The daily moksha: USIU's first literary and art magazine. (1998, April 10). Envoy, p. 6. The Nicholas And Dorothy Cummings Foundation, Inc. (2009). The Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings Foundation, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.thecummingsfoundation.org Thorn, R. (2004). CWU-USIU: Life transforming experience. In A. Dil (Ed.), Intercultural education: Reminiscences of U.S. International University (Vol. I, pp. 97-100). San Diego, CA: Takshila Research University. Thorp, R. (2004). Forward. In A. Dil & J. Miller (Eds.), Intercultural education: Reminiscences of U.S. International University (Vol. I, pp. 23-27). San Diego, CA: Intercultural Forum at Takshila Research University. Tichy, N. M., & Sherman, S. (1994). Control your destiny or someone else will. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 3-21. Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (1990). Assessing academic climates and cultures. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (1991a). Culture and ideology in higher education. New York, NY: Praeger. Tierney, W. G. (1991b). Ideology and identity in postsecondary institutions. In W.G. Tierney (Ed.), Culture and ideology in higher education: Advancing a critical Agenda (pp. 35-58). Westport, CT: Praeger. Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (1998). The responsive university: Restructuring for high performance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

527

Tierney, W. G., & Chaffee, E. E. (1988). Collegiate culture and leadership strategies. New York, NY: Macmillan. Tierney, W. G., & Dilley, P. (2002). Interviewing in education. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 453461). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tori, C. D., & Ducker, D. G. (2004). Sustaining the commitment to multiculturalism: A longitudinal study of a graduate psychology program. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 649-657. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ulrich, D., Zenger, J., & Smallwood, N. (1999). Results-based leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. University convocation: President Rust stresses ideals. (1989, October 20). Envoy, p. 1. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (2013). Purpose of strategic planning. Retrieved from: http://www.strategicplan.illinois.edu Ursin, J. (2012, January 22). University mergers need to be transparent and inclusive. University World News, 205. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20120118205630256 U.S.-I.G.L.U. (1991, February 15). The way we are. USIU News, p. 2. U.S. Federal Government Department of Health and Human Services regulation 45 CFR 46.10 (2009). Van Der Werf, M. (2001). More colleges are seeing the virtues of merging. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(28), A26. Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, L. M., & De Lima, F. (2002). Organizational identification after a merger: A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 233-252. Van Schoor, A. (2003). Learning to overcome resistance to change in higher education: The role of transformational intelligence in the process. Pretoria, South Africa: University of South Africa. Wan, Y. (2008). Managing post-merger integration: A case study of a merger in Chinese higher education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

528

Warren, C. A. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 83-102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wasserman, I. C., Gallegos, P. V., & Ferdman, B. M. (2008). Dancing with resistance: Leadership challenges in fostering a culture of inclusion. In K. M. Thomas (Ed.), Diversity resistance in organizations (pp. 175-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Websters Online Dictionary (2010). Alliant. Retrieved from http://www.webstersonline-dictionary.org/definition/alliant Weick, K. E. (1976, March). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19. Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Weissenbecker, R. (1994, November 1). Where is the vision? Envoy, p. 4. Wernet, S. P., & Jones, S. A. (1992). Merger and acquisition activity between non-profit social service organizations: A case study. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21, 367-380. Weston, F. J., & Weaver, S. C. (2001). Mergers and acquisitions. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Executive MBA Series, McGraw-Hill Professional. Weston, J. F., & Mansinghka, S. K. (1971). Tests of the efficiency performance of conglomerate firms. Journal of Finance, 26, 919-36. Wetstein, K. A. (2005). Student experiences during the 1954-1955 merger of Harris and Stowe Teachers Colleges (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of MissouriSt. Louis. What important qualities do you feel the new USIU president should possess? (1992, February 25). Envoy, p. 3. Wheeler, C. R. (1981). Guidelines for a successful merger. Journal of Tertiary Educational Administration, 3(1), 53-61. White, C. M. (2003). Coping resources, coping responses, and employees' contextual performance in a merger context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, San Diego, CA. White, J. L. & Henderson, S. J. (Eds.). (2008). Building multicultural competency: Development, training, and practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

529

Wiley, J. D. (2003, November). Higher education at the crossroads. Retrieved from http://www.madisonmagazine.com/article.php?section_id=918&xstate=view_stor y&story_id=155312 Williams, J. (2005, September 24). Gen. Kenneth McLennan, 80, led USIU turnaround. The San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050924/news_1m24mclennan.html Wilms, W. W., & Zell, D. M. (2003). Accelerating change in the academy: Balancing new demands while protecting core values. On the Horizon, 11(3), 16-22. Wilson, D. (1995, September 4). The USIU Experience. Envoy, p. 1. Winfrey, M. E. (1989). A historical case study analysis of the merger of two private institutions of higher education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. Woolsey, C. (2004, September 21). Roosevelt, National-Louis nix merger. Crains Chicago Business. Retrieved from http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20040921/NEWS02/200013979/roosevel t-national-louis-nix-merger Wright, R., & Cummings, N. (Eds.). (2001). The practice of psychology: The battle for professionalism. Phoenix, AZ: Zeig, Tucker & Theisen. Wyatt, J. (1998). A rapid result: The achievement of a merger in higher education. Higher Education Review, 31(1), 15-34. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Young, S. (1981). Planning for higher education: Some dimensions of strategic planning for higher education. Planning for Higher Education, 9(4), 1-7. Zakrewski, W. (1991, June 14). McLennan to resign in October. Envoy, p. 1. Zand, D. E., & Sorensen, R. E. (1975). Theory of change and the effective use of management science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(4), 532-545. Zeigler, M. (2001, November 14). Quick Turnaround: Alliant International has achieved remarkable success. San Diego Union Tribune, p. D2. Zemsky, R. G., Wegner, G., & Massy, W. (2005). Remaking the American university: Market-smart and mission-centered. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

530

Zimmerman, P. (1991, September 2). For offensive guru Sid Gillman, the secrets of football are in the highlights. Sports Illustrated, pp. 118-130. Zollo, M., & Meier, D. (2008). What is M&A performance? Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 55-77.

531

APPENDIX A ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE

Appendix A: Online Questionnaire

1. Please indicate with which of the following you most identify: a. current student b. faculty member c. staff member d. alumni e. other 2. Please indicate your previous institutional affiliation: a. California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP)/Alliant University b. United States International University (USIU) 3. Please describe the institutional culture before the merger took place. 4. Please describe the institutional culture after the merger took place. 5. Please describe your experience during the merger. 6. Please describe the institutional culture that exists today (for those still involved with the University). 7. Please feel free to add any additional thoughts or insight in the space below. Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions.

533

APPENDIX B INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Appendix B: Interview Protocol Context The purpose of this interview is to collect information from participant experience in the United States International University (USIU)/Alliant University merger to create Alliant International University. A purposeful sampling method was used in which participant selection was based on current and past positions held in the university, level of knowledge in regards to the topic, and decision-making authority in the overall operation and management of the university to which they played a significant role in the merger process. This information will assist the investigator (interviewer) in identifying emerging conceptual categories around the experience(s) and perception(s) of participants. Procedure The interviewer will use the guided interview questions to interview the selected individuals who have been actively engaged in the merger process. The interviewer will actively listen and respect the interviewee while he or she is addressing the questions. The interviewer will also place assumptions concerning her perception of the experience aside, in order to actively embrace the participants perspective. If at any time, the interviewee is uncomfortable, or would like the interviewer to eliminate information from the data collection, he or she has the right to address the interviewer. The interview will be audibly recorded and the interviewer will take notes during the interview to help with the transcription process after the interview has been completed. Directions The interviewer will ask the interviewee the following 44 questions. The interviewer may ask follow-up questions from remarks provided by the interviewee (for clarification, explanation, trigger of thought, etc.). The interview will take approximately two hours to complete.

Interviewee Background Info: 1. Please tell me a little bit about yourself: your background; how you became involved with Alliant/USIU/CSPP; and the role you played in the merger.

Pre-Merger Merger Background Information 2. What were the original reasons/objectives for the merger? 3. What were some of the major forces that drove the decision to merge?

535

4. What were the expected benefits/synergies to be gained from the merger? 5. Why was the particular institution (either CSPP/Alliant or USIU) chosen as a merger partner? 6. Were there any other potential partners being considered for the merger? 7. What type of merger was it? Consolidation? Dissolution? 8. Can you describe the due diligence and negotiations process? 9. Were people (faculty, students, staff, alumni, etc.) informed about the merger before it became official? How were they informed? 10. Was there any involvement on behalf of faculty, students, staff, alumni, etc. pre-merger? If so, in what context? 11. Was there any formal recognition for the ending of either of the previous institutions? 12. Had you ever been involved in a merger previous to this one? If so, what was the context and how did it compare? 13. Was there any research done on college mergers (as part of the merger preparation)? 14. What was the administrative structure like before the merger? How did it change after the merger?

During-Merger Strategic Planning and Management 15. How was the merger communicated internally and externally? 16. How were alumni notified about the merger? 17. What form of transition/integration planning was formulated for the implementation of the merger? 18. How was this transition implemented and managed? Who decided on this process? 19. How has strategic planning/management changed since the merger?

536

Post-Merger Change 20. What were the major changes made during and after the merger was implemented? 21. What were the results and outcomes of these changes? 22. How do you feel about those changes? 23. How has the merger affected your view of the university? 24. How has the mission/vision changed for the merged university? 25. How has the culture/identity changed for the merged university? Impact of Merger 26. What was the general reaction of: faculty, students, staff, alumni, and the public at large? 27. What areas of the university had the most resistance? Least resistance? 28. How did you respond to/overcome this resistance? 29. How was the university culture/identity affected by the merger? 30. What was the culture like before the merger? 31. How would you describe the culture/identity today, ten years after the merger? Leadership 32. What was the leadership/management style like before the merger? How has it changed since the merger? 33. How would you describe your leadership/management style, and did the merger have any specific impact on your style? 34. In your opinion, what kind of leadership/management is needed during a time of merger?

Perception of Success

537

35. What do you consider to be the most successful and least outcome(s) as a result of the merger? 36. What was the most difficult aspect of the merger? 37. What was the least difficult aspect of the merger? 38. How do you think faculty, students, staff, and alumni view the outcomes/results of merger, eight years later? 39. Overall, do you believe the merger was a success?

Looking to the Future 40. Where do you see the university ten years from now? 41. Where would you like the university to be in ten years? 42. What planning mechanisms are currently in place to reach these goals? 43. What planning mechanisms should be in place to reach these goals? 44. Do you think there will be more colleges and universities merging in the near future? If so, why? Lessons Learned 45. What are some of the lessons that you took away from this experience? 46. If you could go back in time, knowing what you know now, what would you do differently? What wouldnt you change (i.e., do again)? 47. If someone you knew said that they were going to pursue a university merger, what advice would you give them?

*Note: Not all of these questions apply to all interviewees, but the main objective is to get all interviewees perception on the merger and its success.

538

APPENDIX C INTERVIEW PROTOCOL AND ARCHIVES REFERENCED

Appendix C: Institutional Documents & Archives Referenced 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Alliant International University Bylaws (last amended November 10, 2006) Alliant I-MERIT Institutional Plan (2006) Alliant International University Undergraduate Student Handbook (2003) Alliant International University Graduate Student Handbook (2009-2010) Alliant International University Faculty Handbook (2006-07) Alliant Staff & Administrative Employee Handbook (May 2002) Alliant International University Catalog (2009-10) Alliant International University Board of Trustees Development Binder (2007-08) Alliant International University Communications Values and Guidelines Ad Hoc Communications Committee Report (July 2004) Alliant Core Values Statement (see also Alliant International University Website) The Renaissance Plan (strategic plan) (October 2004) Defining a Professional Practice University (Strategic Planning Task Force and Committee memo) (July 14, 2004) Alliants Professional Practice Competencies 6th Version Working Draft (2005-06) A Professional Practice University in a Multicultural/International Context: Capacity and Preparatory Report Presented to WASC (January 2, 2009) The Missions We Serve Publication (November 2005) Alliant Student Satisfaction Survey (2007-09) AIUs Organizational Climate Survey Results prepared by the Center for Innovation and Change (CIC) (8/30/04) Background to the Alliant I-MERIT Institutional Plan (2006) I-MERIT Strategic Plan (December 2008) I-Focus Newsletter (Volume 3, Issue 1) (Fall 2009) Cultural Competence Newsletter (March 2009) Alliant Express Newsletter (November 20, 2009) Proposal to Restructure Undergraduate Education at Alliant International University Draft (1/26/05) BEAMS Committee Report to Restructure Undergraduate Education (Summer 2005) Videos on CSPP-San Diego history featuring interviews with Drs. Thomas McGee, Raymond Trybus, Michael Pittenger, Maury Zemlich, James Chipps, Mark Sherman, Steven Bucky, and Julian Metzoff. Interviews conducted by Dr. Larry Soloman (Spring 1999). Center for Forensic Studies (CFS) Los Angeles Campus Newsletter (March 2008) Proposal for The California School of Professional Psychology To Combine With United States International University Submitted to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges containing the Definitive Agreement (Submitted November 20, 2000; Revised November 30, 2000) Student Information Newsletter Volume 7, Issue 1 (August/ September 2009-2010) WASC Substantive Change Review Committee Letter based on site visit team report for the proposal to combine USIU and CSPP (January 22, 2001) WASC Visiting Team Report for Special Site Visit of October 28-30, 2003

26. 27.

28. 29. 30.

540

31. AIUs Response to WASC Visiting Team Report for Special Site Visit of October 28-30, 2003 (February 19, 2004) 32. WASC Commission Show Cause Action Letter (February 27, 2004) 33. WASC Progress Report (June 1, 2004) 34. Brief Alliant International University History Document (Summer 2005) 35. Strategic Planning Task Force memo (July 14, 2004)

541

APPENDIX D LETTER OF INVITATION AND CONSENT FORM FOR ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE

Appendix D: Letter of Invitation and Consent Form for Online Questionnaire

You are being asked to participate in a dissertation research case study on the merger/combination of California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP)/Alliant University and United States International University (USIU) to create Alliant International University which took place in 2001. This questionnaire is intended only for those persons who were present during the merger of CSPP/Alliant and USIU. The research conducted is governed by federal and state laws protecting human subjects research as well as Alliant International University's Institutional Review Board Guidelines. By agreeing to participate in this case study, the following will occur: 1. I will be asked to indicate my previous institutional affiliation (i.e., CSPP/Alliant or USIU). 2. I will be asked to indicate my university stakeholder identification (i.e., current student, faculty. member, staff member, alumni, or other). 3. I will be asked to respond to a set of open-ended questions. 4. Quotes may be used by the researcher in the case study.

I will be asked questions regarding my perception of the merger experience. Participation is voluntary. I am free to decline to answer any questions that I do not wish to answer, or I may stop or withdraw my participation at any time without penalty. The names and identities of participants are confidential and will not be revealed. I agree to the stated above conditions regarding my participation in this research study.

Yes No

543

APPENDIX E LETTER OF INVITATION AND CONSENT FORM FOR INTERVIEWS

Appendix E: Letter of Invitation and Consent Form for Interviews Alliant School of Management Alliant International University 10455 Pomerado Road San Diego, CA 92131

Title of Research Study: Joining Forces: The Case of Alliant International University Name of Principal Investigator/Primary Researcher: Heather Leslie Contact Information of Principal Investigator/Primary Researcher: Address: 11179 Provencal Place, San Diego, CA 92128 Email: hleslie@alliant.edu Phone: 760-519-8739 Names and phone/email contact of Committee Members: Dissertation Chair: Dr. Ali Abu-Rahma, arahma@alliant.edu, 858-635-4571 Committee Member: Dr. Greg Lorton, glorton2@alliant.edu, 858-635-4549 Committee Member: Dr. Dan Kipley, dkipley@apu.edu, 626-815-6000

INTRODUCTION You are being invited to participate in an interview being conducted on the merger that created Alliant International University. This consent form provides you with the information you will need when considering whether to participate in this study. The research conducted is governed by federal and state laws protecting human subjects research. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this consent form which states that you have read the following sections, that any questions you have about the study have been answered, and that you agree to participate. You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records. A. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND Under the supervision of Dr. Ali Abu-Rahma at Alliant International University, Heather Leslie, a graduate student in the DBA program of the Alliant School of Management, is conducting research on mergers in higher education. The purpose of this interview is to help the researcher examine the perception of the merger between United States International University (USIU) and Alliant University as seen by top university officials who played a key role in the process. B. PROCEDURES By agreeing to participate in this study, the following will occur:

545

1. I will be asked to participate in an interview lasting approximately two hours. 2. I will be asked to discuss the following topics: a. My background information: how I became involved with Alliant/USIU/CSPP; and the role I played in the merger. b. Pre-Merger background information: original objectives/reasons for merger; forces that drove decision to merge; expected benefits/synergies to be gained; communication, notification, and planning strategies. c. Post-Merger information, perception, and insight: Changes that took place as a result of the merger; the impact and/or resistance of the merger regarding university stakeholders/constituencies; overall change in institutional culture, identity, mission, and vision; leadership and management issues; perception of success; view of the future; and lessons learned/insights gained. 3. By agreeing to participate in this research study, an audio recording of this interview will be made for research purposes. 4. After the interview is transcribed and analyzed, the researcher will follow-up with a member-check and present me with the entire written narrative derived as a means to ensure accuracy and credibility of the findings. C. RISKS I will be asked questions regarding my perception of a merger experience and the role I played in the process. I am free to decline to answer any questions that I do not wish to answer, or I may stop my participation in the discussion at any time without penalty. Confidentiality My name will not be revealed. The researcher will use position titles in lieu of names of participants. In addition, any evidence of the interviews, such as audio recordings, transcriptions, and field notes can be destroyed or given back to me at my discretion one year after the dissertation process is complete. D. DIRECT BENEFITS Potential benefits granted to me for participating in the study include recognition of great contribution to the field of higher education mergers, which will add to the growing body of literature by revealing my significant perspective and insight. Such information will not only serve to help the university in the study but also other institutions, researchers, practitioners, and educators interested in, contemplating, or undergoing merger. E. ALTERNATIVES I am free to choose not to participate in this research study. 546

F. COSTS There will be no cost to me as a result of taking part in this research study. G. QUESTIONS I have spoken with Heather Leslie about this study and have had my questions answered. If I have any further questions about the study, I can contact Dr. Ali AbuRahma or Heather Leslie by calling, emailing, or writing to them at the Alliant School of Management, Alliant International University, 10455 Pomerado Road, San Diego, CA 92131. H. CONSENT I have been given a copy of this consent form to keep for my records. PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH STUDY IS VOLUNTARY. I am free to decline to participate in this research study, or I may withdraw my participation at any point without penalty. My decision whether or not to participate in this research study will have no influence on my present or future status at Alliant International University. I have read this entire form and I understand it completely. By signing this form, I am giving my consent to participate in this study.

Signature ________________________________ Date ________________ Research Participant

Signature ________________________________ Date ________________ Interviewer

547

APPENDIX F LIST OF INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS

Appendix F: List of Interview Participants From CSPP/Alliant University 1. 2. Former CSPP/Alliant University/AIU President from 1997-2004. Former CSPP/AIU Senior Vice President; previously CSPP/Alliant University VP for Planning, Development, and Institutional Advancement; previously CSPP-Los Angeles Dean of Students and Provost (Campus Chancellor) from 1975-2006. Former CSPP/AIU Public Trustee from about 1990- 2002-03. Former CSPP/AIU Public Trustee from about 1990-2003. CSPP Professor at Los Angeles Campus and former CSPP/AIU Board Member from 1998-2007; had been involved with the University since 1988 as a doctoral student (now alumnus), staff member, and faculty member. Former AIU Provost from 2001-2003. Former AIU Vice President for Student Life and former CSPP-San Diego Campus Chancellor beginning in 1976. CSPP Founding Faculty Member and Director of Professional Training starting in 1972 at the former CSPP-San Diego Campus. CSPP Senior Faculty Member and Program Director of Psy.D. program beginning in 1978 at the former CSPP-San Diego Campus.

3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

10. Professor and Program Director of Organizational Studies program; also does consulting and specializes in mergers and acquisitions; has been a faculty member at the University since 1991 starting as an adjunct. 11. Professor in Alliant School of Management; former CSPP Professor starting in 1997.

From USIU 12. Former USIU President from 1992-2001. 13. General Counsel for Alliant International University and former General Counsel for USIU (heavily involved in USIU acquisition, due diligence, and implementation); has been employed at University since 1999.

549

14. Former Dean of USIU/AIU College of Business Administration; served as Interim VP for Finance during acquisition transition; involved with University, first as an MBA, then DBA student (now alumnus) and later as an employee from 1979-2004. 15. Former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at USIU/AIU; former Founding Dean of the School of Social Policy at AIU; former AIU Administrator. Employed at University from 1994-2006. 16. Former USIU Department Chair of the College of Arts and Sciences, AIU Administrator, and ESL Instructor. Employed at the University from 1978-2009. 17. Professor in the School of Education (HSOE) at Alliant International University and USIU and specializes in online technology in teaching and learning; has been at the University as both a graduate and doctoral student (now alumnus) and faculty member since 1997. 18. Former Associate Professor in Alliant School of Management and former faculty member of the USIU College of Business. Received Ph.D. in Leadership from the USIU School of Leadership and Human Behavior. Held various academic leadership positions including Chair of the Faculty Senate and member of Alliant International Universitys Board of Trustees from 2004-2008. Had been with the University since 1988. Additional Participant 20. Alliant International University President (2004-present).

550

APPENDIX G PARTICIPANT BILL OF RIGHTS

Appendix G: Participant Bill of Rights Regulations require that participants in academic research studies consent to participate and be notified of their rights and obligations. In accordance with the policies of the Institutional Review Board of Alliant International University for academic research in the social sciences, business, and education your rights and expectations are listed below. The purpose of this study is to examine the perception of the merger between United States International University (USIU) and Alliant University as seen by top university officials who played a key role in the process. In order to determine this perception, your participation will be in the form of an interview. You will be given the interview questions at least one week prior to the interview. Interviews will be audio tape recorded in order to help with the transcription process. If, at any point during the study, you change your mind about participating, you may withdraw your participation without any consequences or use of your information. After the interview is transcribed and analyzed, the researcher will follow-up with a member-check and present you with the entire written narrative as a means to ensure accuracy and credibility of the findings. No additional activities are required. Your participation is voluntary. In essence, you are participating in the study by agreeing to be interviewed. There is no significant risk anticipated by participating in this study. Position titles will be used in place of names to protect the personal identities of participants. In addition, any evidence of the interviews, such as tape recordings, transcriptions, and field notes can be destroyed or given back to you at your discretion after the dissertation process is complete. Consent to participate in this study will be indicated by signing the Informed Consent Agreement form. Potential benefits granted to those who participate in the study include recognition of great contribution to the field of higher education mergers, which will add to the growing body of literature by revealing significant perspective and insight. Such information will not only serve to help the university under investigation but also other institutions, researchers, practitioners, and educators interested in, contemplating, or undergoing merger. If you have questions about your rights and expectations or the Institutional Review Board, please contact the Alliant International University, Institutional Review Board located at 10455 Pomerado Road, San Diego, CA 92131. If you have questions about the study or if you wish to receive a summary of the results and conclusions, please send an email to hleslie@alliant.edu, or call 760-519-8739 during business hours, or mail a request to Heather Leslie, 11179 Provencal Place, San Diego, CA 92128.

552