Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work
ISSN: 2376-1407 (Print) 2376-1415 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/webs21
Faculty Experiences of Merger and Organizational Change in a Social Work Program A. Christson Adedoyin, Monte Miller, Mary S. Jackson, Bernice Dodor & Kristen Hall To cite this article: A. Christson Adedoyin, Monte Miller, Mary S. Jackson, Bernice Dodor & Kristen Hall (2015): Faculty Experiences of Merger and Organizational Change in a Social Work Program, Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, DOI: 10.1080/15433714.2014.997094 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15433714.2014.997094
Published online: 29 Apr 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 9
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=webs21 Download by: [University of Lethbridge]
Date: 10 November 2015, At: 09:21
Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 00:1–12, 2015 Copyright q Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 2376-1407 print/2376-1415 online DOI: 10.1080/15433714.2014.997094
Faculty Experiences of Merger and Organizational Change in a Social Work Program
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
A. Christson Adedoyin Department of Social Work, College of Health Sciences, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Monte Miller and Mary S. Jackson School of Social Work, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
Bernice Dodor Child Development & Family Relations, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
Kristen Hall School of Social Work, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
Social work programs are experiencing unprecedented organizational changes due to budget cuts, dwindling resources, global, and technological challenges. However, there is limited information in the literature about the merger experiences of faculty in social work programs. On one hand undergoing merger and reorganization provides the opportunity to reorganize, reprioritize, re-assess, develop strategies, and explore previously untapped opportunities for social work programs. Conversely, merger experiences have caused frustration, intention to quit, confusion, and loss of professional identity for social work faculty. In this article the authors utilize a journaling method and sense-making approach of the merger experiences of some of the faculty members of a social work program in the United States. The authors suggest a framework to understand how the faculty confronted the challenges, overcame the pitfalls, and maximized the opportunities offered during the merger and organizational change process. Keywords: Merger, restructuring, organizational change, organizational culture, faculty
The funding challenges assailing higher education in the United States are a major reason for mergers, restructuring, and reorganization among different academic programs. As universities struggle to access external and internal resources to balance their budgets, and as technological advances offer opportunities to maximize services to students, more universities will experience the need to merge units to accommodate budgetary issues, economies of scale, efficiency, and keep up with the unprecedented pace of change (Capaldi, 2011; Goldman, 2012; Siler & Royeen, 2007; Slocombe, 2003). It is instructive to point out that globally, academic programs in universities have
Address correspondence to A. Christson Adedoyin, Department of Social Work, College of Health Sciences, Samford University, 800 Lakeshore Drive, Birmingham, AL 35229, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
1
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
2
A. C. ADEDOYIN ET AL.
been undergoing constant organizational restructuring and mergers since the 1980s (Blostein, 1999; Kohoutek, 2012; Tight, 2012). Against this backdrop the purpose of the authors in this article is to present an understanding and the strategies needed to maximize the potentials in mergers and reorganization for a social work program. More specifically, a review of the literature highlighted some examples of the processes and experiences of merger and reorganization in different disciplines such as nursing (Zungolo, 2003), allied health and nursing (Siler & Royeen, 2007), economics (Orden & Gilles, 2002; Siegfried, 2002), library and information science (Hildreth & Koenig, 2002), marketing departments (Neese & Batory, 2005), pediatric residency programs (Lovejoy et al., 2008), radiology (Cohen & Jennings, 2005), and educational studies (Mills, Bettis, Miller, & Nolan, 2005), to name a few. For social work, the impact of restructuring, reengineering, and mergers on social work professionals in hospital settings are well documented (Albrithen & Yalli, 2011; Berger et al., 1996; Berger, Robbins, Lewis, Mizrahi, & Fleit, 2003; Globerman, White, & McDonald, 2002; Heinonen, MacKay, Metteri, & Pajula, 2001; Michalski, Creighton, & Jackson, 2000; Mizrahi & Berger, 2005; Neuman, 2003).
MERGERS AND REORGANIZATION IN SOCIAL WORK PROGRAMS Limited discussions exist in the literature on the experiences and impact of mergers and reorganization on social work faculty and programs in the United States. The few studies that investigated experiences of merger and restructuring in social work focused on the experiences of deans and directors of social work programs (Halter & Gullerud, 1995), strategies to counter merger plans (Reinardy & Halter, 1994), and restructuring that led to downsizing the social work workforce (Blostein, 1999). However, these studies are over a decade old and it is imperative to understand contemporary experiences of social work faculty in the current era of mergers, restructuring, and reorganization in academia. While the Halter and Gullerud study reported the views and experiences of the management cadre in social work programs in the 1990s, the experiences of faculty members whose programs went through mergers and reorganizations have not been given sufficient attention in literature. In this article therefore, the authors seek to fill this gap in the literature by using journaling methodology. The authors’ used journaling method to report the personal experiences, and retrospective descriptions of their experiences during the merger process. Consequently, a sense-making approach through the authors’ personal journaling informed the summarized experiences of the authors’ of this article. It must therefore, be noted that the experiences reported in this article are not a case study, nor the experiences of the entire faculty of the social work program during a merger process. It is incontrovertible that many social work programs are experiencing organizational change in some form or the other (Ginsberg, 2008; Gummer, 1995; McMurtry & McClelland, 1997). However, there is limited discussion about the challenges imposed on the faculty of the programs as a result of the change. The secondary purpose of the authors is therefore, to examine how organizational change can impact a social work program, present some reflections, experiences, and consideration of some of the challenges, pitfalls, and strategies that are useful in understanding how to minimize loss and maximize success through mergers and program reorganization.
THE PARADOX OF RELATIONAL AND PEOPLE SKILLS IN SOCIAL WORK DURING MERGERS As academic programs experience mergers, the foundation for understanding the dynamics and the impact that change brings rests on the seminal work of Gardner (1995). Gardner suggests that
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
FACULTY EXPERIENCES OF MERGER IN SOCIAL WORK
3
leadership and change should be cognizant of contextual environment, constituent relationship, power differentials, and the need for community building. While many social work programs are reputed for training students to possess the task group skills-set that are germane for the betterment of individuals, groups, and communities, it is ironic that social work faculty seldom use those same task group skills within the academic environment to resolve issues. Therefore, when academic mergers are mandated, some units experience great difficulty. The unprompted merging of units into a college, which involves changes in deans and directors, and a new layer of bureaucratic management, may provide the impetus for the academic unit to react like clients: refusing to cooperate, denying there is a need for change, resistant to strategies, and manipulative games (Kottler, 1992). Moreover, it so common for clients to reject attempts to resolve differences, denying there is rejection, viewing the transformation as loss, and refusing to accept reorganization as a reality and necessity (Bloom & Farragher, 2011). Similarly, it was the authors’ experiences during the merger process of our social work program to tangibly notice some faculty’s sense of loss, resistance, and refusal to accept the reorganization.
THE ROAD TO CHANGE Gummer (1995) suggested that, “organizational change is like going to heaven . . . ,”(pg. 83) where it is thought by many to be a good thing to happen to a person, but the bottom line is that no one is ready to do it right away. The merger and the reorganization of the School of Social work into the College of Human Ecology was mandated by the university administration of East Carolina University in 2004 because of budgetary issues. Currently, the College of Human Ecology is made up of the following six departments: Child Development and Family Relations; Criminal Justice; Hospitality Leadership; Interior Design and Merchandising; Nutrition Science; and Social Work. It is important to note that the central administration’s decision to merger these units meant that each autonomous department were expected to work together and make the merger work. The wisdom and rationale of the university’s decision to mandate the merger of these different departments are two-fold. First, there is a similarity in the faculty-student ratio of these six departments. Secondly, these six programs have a common denominator of serving the well-being of people and communities.
VISION OF PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND PROGRAM ALLIES The initial reaction of the authors in the social work program was that of loss of identity, and traumatic confusion. However, as social workers the authors’ perceived tremendous potentials for collaboration with each of the other five programs. For instance, collaboration with the Nutrition Department could provide social workers with evidence-based interventions that could improve the nutritional well-being of the vulnerable such as children, the homeless, and the elderly. In addition, the authors’ anticipated tapping into the expertise of our colleagues from Interior Design and Merchandising on best practices and interventions to improve and maximize the living conditions of clients which are sometimes noticeable during home visits. Moreover, the authors’ foresaw partnerships that the Hospitality Leadership department could offer our clients through transferable skills, professional wisdom in budgeting, and optimizing food stamps vouchers to mention a few. The departments of Child Development and Family Relations, and Criminal Justice were viewed as convenient and natural program allies.
4
A. C. ADEDOYIN ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
MERGER SYNDROME AND EMOTIONS OF REORGANIZATION It is not uncommon for faculty members whose programs are experiencing reorganization and merger to have a sense of vagueness, high emotions, skepticism, communication gaps, distrust, and pessimism (Goldman, 2012; Lovejoy et al., 2008; Mills et al., 2005; Siler & Royeen, 2007). Organizational change with respect to departmental merger in the university system can be a creative, healthy, status-enhancing, and a successful process on one hand (Harman, 2002; Hildreth & Koenig, 2002; Neese & Batory, 2005; Siler & Royeen, 2007). Conversely, departmental merger can lead to what is termed “merger syndrome” (Goldman, 2012, p. 4863). Some of this syndrome includes negativity and chaos within the organization (Mills et al., 2005), contemplation to quit (Neese & Batory, 2005), loss of professional identity and powerlessness (Mills et al., 2005; Walpole, 2000; Wan & Peterson, 2007), and emotional upheavals (Neese & Batory, 2005; Siler & Royeen, 2007) to mention but a few. Organizational change can occur in a variety of ways. There can be mandated change from the top administrator (as was in our experience), where there are no departmental representations, and the onus is on the departments to carry out the merger. Alternatively, merger can be change suggested by faculty and staff. Usually the latter has minimal effect on the organization as a whole. However, the former usually has an ecological impact that creates cause for careful, methodical planning.
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS Our review of the literature identified a variety of theoretical constructs that have been used in understanding and articulating mergers and organizational changes in academia. Some of the theoretical framework include Kotter’s eight phases model of change (Kotter, 1996; Siler & Royeen, 2007); the reflective experience of mergers (REM) framework (Goldman, 2012), organizational culture and identity (Pratt, 1998, 2001; Mills et al., 2005), and pre- and postmerger framework (Wan & Peterson, 2007). For this article, a blend of the aforementioned frameworks and Gardner’s (1995) work was adopted to guide the theoretical basis for discussing the authors’ merger and restructuring experience. Our choice of a blend of the theoretical constructs provides a contextual foundation for our conceptualization and operational discussion of organizational change and merger in a social work program. However, Gardner’s work was more prominently utilized because it focuses on the strength perspective of building community, which is most fitting for elucidating the authors’ experiences of social work faculty in a merger process. According to Gardner (1990), community can be built, rebuilt, and strengthened through a focus on developing coalition building and developing practices that can be used strategically to resolve problems. The premise of his thinking is that a “strong and resilient” community can withstand any internal or external turbulence if it has a healthy mechanism in place for building and maintaining community. Even if an organization has an initially strong sense of community, there may be a breakdown when monumental organizational change occurs. Gardner (1990, 1995) suggests that this creates a sense of loss of identity, belonging, and opportunity. Left unchecked, the consequences of the change may then prove to be devastating for the members. But he suggests that regeneration, active nurturing, and rebuilding can overcome this devastation. In academia, an excellent source of inspiration for this regeneration can be to view the change in the context of what is in the best interests of the students. This can become a unifying focus, and can help individuals understand the need and value of continuing their mission. If the focus is on what is best for the students, there is less time to consider individual agendas that may hinder the merger and organizational change process thereby creating tension among faculty, staff, and administration. The good of the students becomes a major priority, refocusing both the
FACULTY EXPERIENCES OF MERGER IN SOCIAL WORK
5
interpretation of the change, and the plans for dealing with it. Guided by a commitment to the students as the primary concern, necessary alterations to relationships and resources may still occur, but with minor individual injuries. According to Gardner (1995), there is then time to focus on methods of capitalizing on the diversity among the merged program units, the development of shared values, building trust, and creating an environment where participation is encouraged, and honest and open communication is fostered.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
COMPONENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL MERGER Giffords and Dina (2003) suggest that most organizational mergers are similar, especially when focusing on employee issues. Building a strong, new community can leverage the potential positive impact of the merger (Giffords & Dina, 2003). Giffords and Dina outlined a number of phases that should be considered when organizations go through during a merger process. These factors are: (a) Initial phase; (b) Integration of personnel and programs phase; (c) Merging of organizational cultures; (d) Building trust; (e) Communication; and (f) Developing a shared vision. We will discuss our experiences of the merger and reorganization of the School of Social Work with the College of Human Ecology utilizing the phases outlined by Giffords and Dina (2003). Initial Phase This first phase is comprised of uncertainties, ambiguities, frustration, fear, and anger. A rhetorical question that we asked was: “Why is this happening to us?” In the initial discussions about merging departments, one of the first considerations is whether anyone’s job will be lost as a result of the merger. Unlike corporate America, which is more transactional and contractual concerning staff, and where job loss is often an inescapable outcome of reorganization, we observed that in the university the atmosphere is more collegial and considerate. Therefore, the authors’ perceived that faculty job security was a top priority of the university management. However, despite the assurance of the faculty’s employment, we observed that there was a noticeable communication gap which accentuated faculty anxiety, suspicion, and uncertainty. In retrospect, it would have been appreciated if the leadership of the college had invested sufficient time to communicate job security to all faculty and administrative staff as a top priority of the merger and reorganization process. Furthermore, unlike the business sector, which operates a topdown and hierarchical administrative structure with little or no communication from lower level staff, we realized during our merger and reorganization process that the university management provided opportunity for discussion. However the opportunity was not fully maximized, and therefore, open and frank discussions about the merger was almost non-existent. One advantage of open discussion about an imminent merger and reorganization is that it allows the faculty to have input in the decision-making process. Communication gap during this phase raises the likelihood of faculty members not buying into the merger and reorganization process. Conducive Environment for Discussion Closely related with open discussion is that faculty and staff should be allowed to voice their concerns with a reassuring and non-retributive environment. It is the role of administrators to ensure that every faculty member has an opportunity to voice their concern without feeling that they are in jeopardy, or vulnerable to retaliation. From our experience, we noticed that it is extremely important to ensure that a junior faculty is not consciously or unconsciously intimidated by the possibility of a non-tenure vote, and/or non-merit pay increase. For instance one of the authors was
6
A. C. ADEDOYIN ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
a junior faculty during the merger process and he remembers the disappointment and uncertainty he felt because of the lack of communication. During this phase, it is extremely important for administrators to convey the message that different opinions are valued and respected. Equally important is the role of senior faculty members in fostering a safe environment. Communicating openly and honestly with administrators sets the tone for all of the following phases during this process. It is the responsibility of the senior faculty to take a leadership role in this process by determining, along with junior faculty, the importance of the merger, its impact, and transitional issues that will serve to benefit the reorganizational process.
Organizing Clusters Successful mergers have been noted to be a complicated process, because it amalgamates different entities that have historically been autonomous or free-standing (DePamphilis, 2011; Schein, 2010). The parties involved can begin to build new meaning by exposing the different elements of the reorganized units to each other. From our experience in our social work program we posit that one way to do this is to form organizing clusters to assess and evaluate total college needs. The cluster should consist of faculty representatives from all merging units or programs, including representatives from administrative staff. While consideration should be given to losses, the focus should be placed on the enlarged pool of resources that is now available to each of the program entities. Utilizing a strengths-based model, the focus is to consider all changes in light of how to best maximize resources that are available in order to make each individual unit a stronger entity unto itself, thereby creating a strong whole. The atmosphere of organizing clusters of faculty and administrative staff provides an opportunity for each individual unit to become a stronger entity through self-assessment and empowerment. Giffords and Dina (2003) states that few faculty members are involved in merger decision-making processes. It is therefore important to move in a direction in which individuals within each unit feel that their unit has been strengthened by its incorporation into a larger mission. Our experiences suggest that utilizing the expertise of faculty and staff, and creating an integration of personnel and programs can accomplish this task.
Integration of Personnel and Programs The second phase involves the merger of personnel from each program unit, and this second phase is critical in the smooth transitional phase of the reorganization. Each unit involved should meet together as soon as possible to discuss program similarities and differences, and how they each fit into the schema of the new entity or college. It is crucial to expedite this process, because it is important for each unit to eliminate the mystery of the other. This can be accomplished by understanding the history of each unit, and considering common elements. We drew a lot of understanding to go through this phase by drawing from the cultural competence literature. Cultural competence suggests the need to recognize, understand, respect, and acknowledge differences, while focusing on the students, (in our case) who are considered the common factor that brings both the professors and the departments together (Moodian, 2009; Moule & Diller, 2012). In organization merger the concept of cultural competence also applies. Without students, no unit or department would be necessary within the university system. Therefore, the focus should not be on individual faculty members or departments, but on how best we can serve students despite the diversity of philosophy and pedagogy of the six different departments.
FACULTY EXPERIENCES OF MERGER IN SOCIAL WORK
7
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
Faculty and Program Diversity The literature is replete with the benefits of diversity as a by-product of strengthening academic programs in a university (Lang, 2003; Langley et al., 2012; Locke, 2007; Pinderhughes, 1989, 1997; Seo & Hill, 2005). But what does this new-found diversified college offer each individual program entity? For example, what do a criminal justice department and school of social work have in common? Why and what can these program entities consider that make this merger a good fit? Pinderhughes (1989, 1997) suggests that it is not important to continuously focus on differences, but the important element is to consider the similarities and how each can strengthen the other. Methods of strengthening each other can be demonstrated in many different forms. For us we observed that policies and procedures can be unified to maintain crucial elements that are germane to each unit. Departmental programs and ceremonies can be combined, and still preserve the values and customs of each discipline. For example, social work students and faculty can maintain the self determination that is an important component of their code of ethics, while criminal justice students and faculty can maintain their need to focus on law and order and due process. In this instance both programs stress the importance of respecting the client and/or offender. The major understanding is that the students should be educated and trained to work with a population of individuals, groups, and communities who are the same individuals, but in need of different interventions. Similarly, we saw potentials for faculty collaboration between social work and nutrition science, especially as it relates to addressing health disparities and eating choices of minorities. Thus, the college values and customs will assist with the overall mission of each of the individual units within the college. Consequently, blended values and customs can emerge from the culture of programs. Moreover, respecting the unique values and culture of each program provides a platform to develop an organizational culture that encompasses the cultural values of all merged units.
MERGING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES According to Kreitner (2004) organizational culture is an important component that can make or break the organization. Organizational culture according to Schein is: A composite of the beliefs, perceptions, and behaviors of individuals and groups within the organization, which are utilized as coping mechanisms to survive both internal and external issues. These strategies are passed on to incoming employees as a valid mechanism for functioning in the organizational environment. (Schein, 1992, p. 494 as cited by Giffords & Dina, 2003)
The challenge in merging several university units is a complex issue. It is more herculean to establish a unified organizational culture where previously autonomous units had their distinct program and cultural ethos. In our experience it was not surprising to note that there was resistance in consolidating different programs organizational cultures into a new organizational culture for the merged programs. Culture has fostered and nurtured all of the factors that created the uniqueness of each unit. The strategy is not to ask each unit to give up their culture, but to seek understanding of each unit’s culture. As the units are evaluating their own culture, they can modify, strengthen, or eliminate norms that are no longer relevant. Therefore merger of academic units provides an opportunity to allow faculty and staff time to reflect on existing organizational culture and decide whether there is a need to make changes. Because cultural changes may elicit feelings of sadness, anger, and a sense of loss, Giffords & Dina suggest that this is an area that creates what they term “management dilemma” (p. 75). Administratively, the task for the administrative team is to put the merger in shape as fast as possible. But in reality, the administration has to also be cognizant of the need to be mindful of the pain that the units may be experiencing, and that the need to adjust to the identity loss may take
8
A. C. ADEDOYIN ET AL.
some time. Thus, the goal for the administration is to ensure that “all faculty and staff can engage in the period of processing, but continue to move on to create a shared vision” (p. 75). One strategy for accomplishing this shared vision we recommend, is to build and strengthen a sense of trust among faculty and staff.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
Building Trust Kreiter and Kinicki (2012) further states that building trust is an important component in the merger process. Like other phases, this fourth phase will take time and a great deal of effort on the part of the administration, as well as faculty and staff. However, the building trust can begin with open and honest dialogue. From our experience, we realized that one of the major premises of the open and honest dialogue scheme is to understand that everyone makes mistakes. A reality must be established that mistakes will be made, with an assumption that despite the mistake, everyone is working for the good of the organization. Moreover one strategy that has proven to be very effective in the authors’ experiences in building trust is the transparency rule of keeping everyone in the loop, and soliciting views, comments, questions, and concerns. When transparency is absent, assumptions are made to fill the vacuum of information, and they are usually neither accurate nor positive. As much as possible, information must be made available to everyone, and allow everyone an equal opportunity to accomplish his or her individual goals within the organization. A corollary is the “No Surprises” rule. Not knowing what is happening until after it does tends to make individuals feel powerless and abused (Bloom & Farragher, 2011). This feeling of victimization feeds their fear, and drastically increases resistance. Proactively explaining changes and the need for them before they take place can greatly reduce surprises and their negative impacts. Fostering open communication through collaborative projects will allow opportunities for building trust not only among units and individuals, but with administration as well. This practice eliminates or at least minimizes the “we/they” syndrome, and fosters a “we-ness” persona in the merging units. An arena where honest and open communication takes place provides an opportunity for the development of a shared vision. Building trust is not going to be accomplished overnight. Evaluations and assessments are crucial and necessary components of the ongoing merger process. External consultants who are neutral resources can assist with moving the process forward. Outside consultants offer another perspective by helping faculty, staff, and administration consider factors that may not have been as evident to them, because of personal or organizational investments. The consultants’ role is clearly to facilitate and make suggestions, enhance communication, and feedback that will be in the best interest of the organization.
Communications There is a tendency in times of challenge and threat to isolate a unit or even a faculty during the merger process. In merger situations initiated from the university administration, it is common for units to bind more together. This, however, will lead to further isolation, insulation, and the inability of the new group to overcome their newness, and to form a new-shared meaning and purpose. Both verbal and written communication is crucial to the reorganization process. The purpose, goals, and objectives of the reorganization process must be clearly communicated to faculty and staff in order to limit feelings of isolation (Griffin, 2008). Communication can, in part, overcome the natural tendency to become isolated. By receiving accurate and timely information about what is happening, the sense of threat and challenge is greatly reduced. By opening dialogue among the units, it is possible to see commonality of experience, and students become the focus. The opportunity to form and create new-shared
FACULTY EXPERIENCES OF MERGER IN SOCIAL WORK
9
meaning is enhanced with open and honest dialogue, which can enrich not only the quality of life among colleagues, but can also enhance the sense of community within the newly-created college. Communicating information is crucial, and must be methodical, consistent, frequent, and relevant. There must be multiple methods of communicating with faculty and staff, and an understanding that one method does not fit all. Some faculty still utilizes face-to-face communication, while others prefer email. Some others are more inclined to use the telephone. We suggest from experience that a strategy is to use all of the methods to communicate information to faculty and staff. If an error is to occur, it is best to err on the side of too much information than not enough.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
Developing a Shared Vision In a strength-based model of change, the resulting vision of the future offers the promise of things getting better. With a positive focus on what the future can be, and with a primary focus on how best to serve the interest of the students, it is possible to find new meaning as a group through shared vision. Sharing the new vision of merged units is a very important phase in organizational change. It is the role of the both the senior faculty, and the administrative team to lead the path to creating innovative visions that will foster organizational cultural change (Packard, 2000). The goal of maintaining an environment that allows faculty, staff, students, and administrators to work together to accomplish a shared vision can provide the impetus for positive progression of the merger and organizational change process.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION AND ADMINISTRATION Change is inevitable in life, and is therefore inescapable in the university setting. Current economic and political trends indicate that the academic world—and by implication, social work programs— will have to become more business-like. This typically requires rationing resources and programs, and can result in both wanted and unwanted reorganizations. While a select few may make the decision to merge university program units into one college, it is important that social work administrators and faculty fully involved in the process communicate their concerns, issues, fears, and questions openly and honestly. The way in which the change is perceived by faculty and staff of a social work program has a strong impact on the student population, which is the most important stakeholder in this process. The focus should be on how to make this merger the least intrusive for students, and how they can gain from such a merger. When the focus is on the students of each unit, an atmosphere of working toward the betterment of students will be created. Change is often uncomfortable, but we suggest that if social work program faculty can utilize the strengths perspective during the merger process, it provides an opportunity to look within and capitalize on resources for students that were not available prior to the merger. When social work programs that may be affected by merger and reorganization view the process as opportunities to build a new and more efficient college, stronger university community, and when appropriate community-building activities are undertaken, a number of positive impacts can occur. First, there is more opportunity to collaborate with colleagues in different disciplines who are now a part of the same college. Second, there are more budgetary resources where units can pool their funds and share resources. Third, faculty and staff assignments can be reconfigured to enhance student and teaching performance, grant writing, publications, committee work, and a new type of fostered interaction within students of different disciplines. Another implication of merger and reorganization is that social work faculty should work hard at remaining mentally and physically healthy. Change often creates immediate reactions, and those reactions can foster anger, frustration, confusion, and detachment and isolation. These conditions, if allowed to persist, can cause serious health issues. Health and stress issues were major challenges
10
A. C. ADEDOYIN ET AL.
to some faculty during our merger experience. A proactive stance would be to work in partnership with other faculty to keep healthy.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
CONCLUSION Merger and organizational change can be a complex shift from the status quo. When change involves the merging of program units on a university campus, there is need to carefully consider the impact of the change for the students, faculty, administration, university, and community. Change in academia is even more complex than change in the corporate world due to several unique aspects, including the tenure system, pluralistic governance, the perception of academic freedom, sense of independence, and a somewhat vague sense of shared purpose with the larger university community. Social work programs and faculty should be prepared for organizational change and merger, and draw from the strengths perspective when transitioning through the merger process. Although there are numerous factors that can assist in this transition, we identify three major factors are strongly suggested: open and honest communication, building trust, and development of a shared vision (Giffords and Dina, 2003; Packard, 2000). Organizational change can be a healthy process, and the merging of program units should not be about the amalgamation of two or more programs. Due diligence and consideration should be given to the organizational culture that existed prior to the merger, and careful consideration should be given to how the new organizational culture could integrate the core values and ethos of the merging units. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The study’s journaling was conducted while the first author was a faculty member at the School of Social Work, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
REFERENCES Albrithen, A., & Yalli, N. (2011). The perception of organizational issues of social work practitioners in Saudi hospitals. Journal of Social Service Research, 38, 273– 291. doi:10.1080/01488376.2011.619390 Berger, C. S., Cayner, J., Jensen, G., Mizrahi, T., Scesny, A., & Trachtenberg, J. (1996). The changing scene of social work in hospitals: A report of a national study by the society for social work administrators in health care and nasw. Health & Social Work, 21, 167–177. doi:10.1093/hsw/21.3.167 Berger, C. S., Robbins, C., Lewis, M., Mizrahi, T., & Fleit, S. (2003). The impact of organizational change on social work staffing in a hospital setting. Social Work in Health Care, 37, 1–18. doi:10.1300/J010v37n01_01 Bloom, S. L., & Farragher, B. J. (2011). Destroying sanctuary: The crisis in human service delivery systems. Oxford, UK; and New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Blostein, S. (1999). Social work education and university restructuring. Arete, 23, 23–39. Capaldi, E. D. (2011). Budget cuts and educational quality. Academe, 97, 10–13. Cohen, M. D., & Jennings, G. (2005). Mergers involving academic medical institutions: Impact on academic radiology departments. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2, 174 –182. DePamphilis, D. (2011). Mergers, acquisitions, and other restructuring activities an integrated approach to process, tools, cases, and solutions (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Academic Press. Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press. Gardner, J. W. (1995). The new leadership agenda. In Gozdz Kazimierz (Ed.), Community building: Renewing spirit and learning in business. San Francisco, CA: Sterling & Stone. Giffords, E. D., & Dina, R. P. (2003). Changing organizational cultures. Administration in Social Work, 27, 69–81. doi:10. 1300/J147v27n01_05 Ginsberg, L. H. (2008). Management and leadership in social work practice and education. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
FACULTY EXPERIENCES OF MERGER IN SOCIAL WORK
11
Globerman, J., White, J., & McDonald, G. (2002). Social work in restructuring hospitals: Program management five years later. Health & Social Work, 27, 274 –284. doi:10.1093/hsw/27.4.274 Goldman, G. A. (2012). Exploring academics’ experiences of a merger in higher education: The reflective experience of mergers (REM) framework. African Journal of Business Management, 6, 4862–4879. doi:10.5897/AJBM11.2137 Griffin, R. W. (2008). Management. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Gummer, B. (1995). Reinventing, restructuring, and the big bang theory of organizational change. Administration in Social Work, 19, 83 –97. doi:10.1300/J147v19n03_06 Halter, A., & Gullerud, E. (1995). Academic mergers in social work programs: Autonomy or disharmony? Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 269–280. Harman, K. (2002). Merging divergent campus cultures into coherent educational communities: Challenges for higher education leaders. Higher Education, 44, 91–114. doi:10.1023/A:1015565112209 Heinonen, T., MacKay, I., Metteri, A., & Pajula, M. (2001). Social work and health restructuring in Canada and Finland. Social Work in Health Care, 34, 71 –87. doi:10.1080/00981380109517018 Hildreth, C. R., & Koenig, M. (2002). Organizational realignment of LIS programs in academia: From independent standalone units to incorporated programs. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 43, 126– 133. Kohoutek, J. (2012). Three decades of implementation research in higher education: Limitations and prospects of theory development. Higher Education Quarterly, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2012.00531.x Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kottler, J. A. (1992). Compassionate therapy: Working with difficult clients. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kreitner, R. (2004). Foundations of management: Basics and best practices. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2012). Organizational behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Lang, D. W. (2003). The future of merger: What do we want mergers to do: Efficiency or diversity? Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 33, 19– 46. Langley, A., Golden-Biddle, K., Reay, T., Denis, J., He´bert, Y., Lamothe, L., & Gervais, J. (2012). Identity struggles in merging organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 48, 135–167. doi:10.1177/0021886312438857 Locke, W. (2007). Higher education mergers: Integrating organisational cultures and developing appropriate management styles. Higher Education Quarterly, 61, 83–102. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2006.00339.x Lovejoy, F. H., Nathan, D. G., Zuckerman, B. S., Pizzo, P. A., Fleisher, G. R., & Vinci, R. J. (2008). The merger of two pediatric residency programs: Lessons learned. The Journal of Pediatrics, 153, 731–732. McMurtry, S. L., & McClelland, R. W. (1997). Class sizes, faculty workloads, and program structures: How MSW programs have responded to changes in their environments. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 307 –320. Michalski, J. H., Creighton, E., & Jackson, L. (2000). The impact of hospital restructuring on social work services. Social Work in Health Care, 30, 1– 26. doi:10.1300/J010v30n02_01 Mills, M., Bettis, P., Miller, J. W., & Nolan, R. (2005). Experiences of academic unit reorganization: Organizational identity and identification in organizational change. Review of Higher Education, 28, 597–619. Mizrahi, T., & Berger, C. S. (2005). A longitudinal look at social work leadership in hospitals: The impact of a changing health care system. Health & Social Work, 30, 155–165. doi:10.1093/hsw/30.2.155 Moodian, M. A. (2009). Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within organizations. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Moule, J., & Diller, J. V. (2012). Cultural competence: A primer for educators. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Neese, W. T., & Batory, S. S. (2005). Autonomous versus merged marketing departments: The impact of current department structure and previous restructuring experience on faculty perceptions. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 219 –238. doi:10.1177/0273475305279527 Neuman, K. (2003). The effect of organizational reengineering on job satisfaction for staff in hospital social work departments. Social Work in Health Care, 36, 19 –33. doi:10.1300/J010v36n04_02 Orden, D., & Gilles, R. (2002). The merger of two economics Ph.D. programs at Virginia Tech. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84, 847– 853. Packard, T. (2000). The management audit as a teaching tool in social work administration. Journal of Social Work Education, 36, 39–52. Pinderhughes, E. (1989). Understanding race, ethnicity, and power: The key to efficacy in clinical practice. New York, NY: Free Press. Pinderhughes, E. (1997). Developing diversity competence in child welfare and permanency planning. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 5, 19–38. doi:10.1300/J285v05n01_03 Pratt, M. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification. In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 17–31). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pratt, M. (2001). Social identity dynamics in modern organizations: An organizational psychology/organizational behavior perspective. In M. Hogg & D. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 13–30). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
12
A. C. ADEDOYIN ET AL.
Reinardy, J., & Halter, A. (1994). Social work in academia: A case study of survival. Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 300 –309. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Seo, M., & Hill, N. S. (2005). Understanding the human side of merger and acquisition. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 422–443. doi:10.1177/0021886305281902 Siegfried, J. J. (2002). Economic mergers in academe: A discussion of academic mergers in economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84, 863 –866. doi:10.1111/1467-8276.00351 Siler, W. L., & Royeen, C. B. (2007). Guiding principles in a merger of allied health and nursing schools. Journal of Allied Health, 36, 24 –29. Slocombe, P. (2003). Using strengths-based practice to support culture change. Journal of Social Work in Long-Term Care, 2, 307–323. doi:10.1300/J181v02n03_09 Tight, M. (2012). Researching higher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Walpole, M. (2000). Under construction: Identity and isomorphism in the merger of a library and information science school and an education school. The Library Quarterly, 70, 423–445. Wan, Y., & Peterson, M. W. (2007). A case study of a merger in Chinese higher education: The motives, processes, and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 683– 696. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.07.007 Zungolo, E. H. (2003). Nursing and academic mergers of the health sciences: A critique. Nursing Outlook, 51, 52 –58. doi:10. 1016/S0029-6554(02)05452-0
ISSN: 2376-1407 (Print) 2376-1415 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/webs21
Faculty Experiences of Merger and Organizational Change in a Social Work Program A. Christson Adedoyin, Monte Miller, Mary S. Jackson, Bernice Dodor & Kristen Hall To cite this article: A. Christson Adedoyin, Monte Miller, Mary S. Jackson, Bernice Dodor & Kristen Hall (2015): Faculty Experiences of Merger and Organizational Change in a Social Work Program, Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, DOI: 10.1080/15433714.2014.997094 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15433714.2014.997094
Published online: 29 Apr 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 9
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=webs21 Download by: [University of Lethbridge]
Date: 10 November 2015, At: 09:21
Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 00:1–12, 2015 Copyright q Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 2376-1407 print/2376-1415 online DOI: 10.1080/15433714.2014.997094
Faculty Experiences of Merger and Organizational Change in a Social Work Program
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
A. Christson Adedoyin Department of Social Work, College of Health Sciences, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Monte Miller and Mary S. Jackson School of Social Work, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
Bernice Dodor Child Development & Family Relations, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
Kristen Hall School of Social Work, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
Social work programs are experiencing unprecedented organizational changes due to budget cuts, dwindling resources, global, and technological challenges. However, there is limited information in the literature about the merger experiences of faculty in social work programs. On one hand undergoing merger and reorganization provides the opportunity to reorganize, reprioritize, re-assess, develop strategies, and explore previously untapped opportunities for social work programs. Conversely, merger experiences have caused frustration, intention to quit, confusion, and loss of professional identity for social work faculty. In this article the authors utilize a journaling method and sense-making approach of the merger experiences of some of the faculty members of a social work program in the United States. The authors suggest a framework to understand how the faculty confronted the challenges, overcame the pitfalls, and maximized the opportunities offered during the merger and organizational change process. Keywords: Merger, restructuring, organizational change, organizational culture, faculty
The funding challenges assailing higher education in the United States are a major reason for mergers, restructuring, and reorganization among different academic programs. As universities struggle to access external and internal resources to balance their budgets, and as technological advances offer opportunities to maximize services to students, more universities will experience the need to merge units to accommodate budgetary issues, economies of scale, efficiency, and keep up with the unprecedented pace of change (Capaldi, 2011; Goldman, 2012; Siler & Royeen, 2007; Slocombe, 2003). It is instructive to point out that globally, academic programs in universities have
Address correspondence to A. Christson Adedoyin, Department of Social Work, College of Health Sciences, Samford University, 800 Lakeshore Drive, Birmingham, AL 35229, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
1
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
2
A. C. ADEDOYIN ET AL.
been undergoing constant organizational restructuring and mergers since the 1980s (Blostein, 1999; Kohoutek, 2012; Tight, 2012). Against this backdrop the purpose of the authors in this article is to present an understanding and the strategies needed to maximize the potentials in mergers and reorganization for a social work program. More specifically, a review of the literature highlighted some examples of the processes and experiences of merger and reorganization in different disciplines such as nursing (Zungolo, 2003), allied health and nursing (Siler & Royeen, 2007), economics (Orden & Gilles, 2002; Siegfried, 2002), library and information science (Hildreth & Koenig, 2002), marketing departments (Neese & Batory, 2005), pediatric residency programs (Lovejoy et al., 2008), radiology (Cohen & Jennings, 2005), and educational studies (Mills, Bettis, Miller, & Nolan, 2005), to name a few. For social work, the impact of restructuring, reengineering, and mergers on social work professionals in hospital settings are well documented (Albrithen & Yalli, 2011; Berger et al., 1996; Berger, Robbins, Lewis, Mizrahi, & Fleit, 2003; Globerman, White, & McDonald, 2002; Heinonen, MacKay, Metteri, & Pajula, 2001; Michalski, Creighton, & Jackson, 2000; Mizrahi & Berger, 2005; Neuman, 2003).
MERGERS AND REORGANIZATION IN SOCIAL WORK PROGRAMS Limited discussions exist in the literature on the experiences and impact of mergers and reorganization on social work faculty and programs in the United States. The few studies that investigated experiences of merger and restructuring in social work focused on the experiences of deans and directors of social work programs (Halter & Gullerud, 1995), strategies to counter merger plans (Reinardy & Halter, 1994), and restructuring that led to downsizing the social work workforce (Blostein, 1999). However, these studies are over a decade old and it is imperative to understand contemporary experiences of social work faculty in the current era of mergers, restructuring, and reorganization in academia. While the Halter and Gullerud study reported the views and experiences of the management cadre in social work programs in the 1990s, the experiences of faculty members whose programs went through mergers and reorganizations have not been given sufficient attention in literature. In this article therefore, the authors seek to fill this gap in the literature by using journaling methodology. The authors’ used journaling method to report the personal experiences, and retrospective descriptions of their experiences during the merger process. Consequently, a sense-making approach through the authors’ personal journaling informed the summarized experiences of the authors’ of this article. It must therefore, be noted that the experiences reported in this article are not a case study, nor the experiences of the entire faculty of the social work program during a merger process. It is incontrovertible that many social work programs are experiencing organizational change in some form or the other (Ginsberg, 2008; Gummer, 1995; McMurtry & McClelland, 1997). However, there is limited discussion about the challenges imposed on the faculty of the programs as a result of the change. The secondary purpose of the authors is therefore, to examine how organizational change can impact a social work program, present some reflections, experiences, and consideration of some of the challenges, pitfalls, and strategies that are useful in understanding how to minimize loss and maximize success through mergers and program reorganization.
THE PARADOX OF RELATIONAL AND PEOPLE SKILLS IN SOCIAL WORK DURING MERGERS As academic programs experience mergers, the foundation for understanding the dynamics and the impact that change brings rests on the seminal work of Gardner (1995). Gardner suggests that
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
FACULTY EXPERIENCES OF MERGER IN SOCIAL WORK
3
leadership and change should be cognizant of contextual environment, constituent relationship, power differentials, and the need for community building. While many social work programs are reputed for training students to possess the task group skills-set that are germane for the betterment of individuals, groups, and communities, it is ironic that social work faculty seldom use those same task group skills within the academic environment to resolve issues. Therefore, when academic mergers are mandated, some units experience great difficulty. The unprompted merging of units into a college, which involves changes in deans and directors, and a new layer of bureaucratic management, may provide the impetus for the academic unit to react like clients: refusing to cooperate, denying there is a need for change, resistant to strategies, and manipulative games (Kottler, 1992). Moreover, it so common for clients to reject attempts to resolve differences, denying there is rejection, viewing the transformation as loss, and refusing to accept reorganization as a reality and necessity (Bloom & Farragher, 2011). Similarly, it was the authors’ experiences during the merger process of our social work program to tangibly notice some faculty’s sense of loss, resistance, and refusal to accept the reorganization.
THE ROAD TO CHANGE Gummer (1995) suggested that, “organizational change is like going to heaven . . . ,”(pg. 83) where it is thought by many to be a good thing to happen to a person, but the bottom line is that no one is ready to do it right away. The merger and the reorganization of the School of Social work into the College of Human Ecology was mandated by the university administration of East Carolina University in 2004 because of budgetary issues. Currently, the College of Human Ecology is made up of the following six departments: Child Development and Family Relations; Criminal Justice; Hospitality Leadership; Interior Design and Merchandising; Nutrition Science; and Social Work. It is important to note that the central administration’s decision to merger these units meant that each autonomous department were expected to work together and make the merger work. The wisdom and rationale of the university’s decision to mandate the merger of these different departments are two-fold. First, there is a similarity in the faculty-student ratio of these six departments. Secondly, these six programs have a common denominator of serving the well-being of people and communities.
VISION OF PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND PROGRAM ALLIES The initial reaction of the authors in the social work program was that of loss of identity, and traumatic confusion. However, as social workers the authors’ perceived tremendous potentials for collaboration with each of the other five programs. For instance, collaboration with the Nutrition Department could provide social workers with evidence-based interventions that could improve the nutritional well-being of the vulnerable such as children, the homeless, and the elderly. In addition, the authors’ anticipated tapping into the expertise of our colleagues from Interior Design and Merchandising on best practices and interventions to improve and maximize the living conditions of clients which are sometimes noticeable during home visits. Moreover, the authors’ foresaw partnerships that the Hospitality Leadership department could offer our clients through transferable skills, professional wisdom in budgeting, and optimizing food stamps vouchers to mention a few. The departments of Child Development and Family Relations, and Criminal Justice were viewed as convenient and natural program allies.
4
A. C. ADEDOYIN ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
MERGER SYNDROME AND EMOTIONS OF REORGANIZATION It is not uncommon for faculty members whose programs are experiencing reorganization and merger to have a sense of vagueness, high emotions, skepticism, communication gaps, distrust, and pessimism (Goldman, 2012; Lovejoy et al., 2008; Mills et al., 2005; Siler & Royeen, 2007). Organizational change with respect to departmental merger in the university system can be a creative, healthy, status-enhancing, and a successful process on one hand (Harman, 2002; Hildreth & Koenig, 2002; Neese & Batory, 2005; Siler & Royeen, 2007). Conversely, departmental merger can lead to what is termed “merger syndrome” (Goldman, 2012, p. 4863). Some of this syndrome includes negativity and chaos within the organization (Mills et al., 2005), contemplation to quit (Neese & Batory, 2005), loss of professional identity and powerlessness (Mills et al., 2005; Walpole, 2000; Wan & Peterson, 2007), and emotional upheavals (Neese & Batory, 2005; Siler & Royeen, 2007) to mention but a few. Organizational change can occur in a variety of ways. There can be mandated change from the top administrator (as was in our experience), where there are no departmental representations, and the onus is on the departments to carry out the merger. Alternatively, merger can be change suggested by faculty and staff. Usually the latter has minimal effect on the organization as a whole. However, the former usually has an ecological impact that creates cause for careful, methodical planning.
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS Our review of the literature identified a variety of theoretical constructs that have been used in understanding and articulating mergers and organizational changes in academia. Some of the theoretical framework include Kotter’s eight phases model of change (Kotter, 1996; Siler & Royeen, 2007); the reflective experience of mergers (REM) framework (Goldman, 2012), organizational culture and identity (Pratt, 1998, 2001; Mills et al., 2005), and pre- and postmerger framework (Wan & Peterson, 2007). For this article, a blend of the aforementioned frameworks and Gardner’s (1995) work was adopted to guide the theoretical basis for discussing the authors’ merger and restructuring experience. Our choice of a blend of the theoretical constructs provides a contextual foundation for our conceptualization and operational discussion of organizational change and merger in a social work program. However, Gardner’s work was more prominently utilized because it focuses on the strength perspective of building community, which is most fitting for elucidating the authors’ experiences of social work faculty in a merger process. According to Gardner (1990), community can be built, rebuilt, and strengthened through a focus on developing coalition building and developing practices that can be used strategically to resolve problems. The premise of his thinking is that a “strong and resilient” community can withstand any internal or external turbulence if it has a healthy mechanism in place for building and maintaining community. Even if an organization has an initially strong sense of community, there may be a breakdown when monumental organizational change occurs. Gardner (1990, 1995) suggests that this creates a sense of loss of identity, belonging, and opportunity. Left unchecked, the consequences of the change may then prove to be devastating for the members. But he suggests that regeneration, active nurturing, and rebuilding can overcome this devastation. In academia, an excellent source of inspiration for this regeneration can be to view the change in the context of what is in the best interests of the students. This can become a unifying focus, and can help individuals understand the need and value of continuing their mission. If the focus is on what is best for the students, there is less time to consider individual agendas that may hinder the merger and organizational change process thereby creating tension among faculty, staff, and administration. The good of the students becomes a major priority, refocusing both the
FACULTY EXPERIENCES OF MERGER IN SOCIAL WORK
5
interpretation of the change, and the plans for dealing with it. Guided by a commitment to the students as the primary concern, necessary alterations to relationships and resources may still occur, but with minor individual injuries. According to Gardner (1995), there is then time to focus on methods of capitalizing on the diversity among the merged program units, the development of shared values, building trust, and creating an environment where participation is encouraged, and honest and open communication is fostered.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
COMPONENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL MERGER Giffords and Dina (2003) suggest that most organizational mergers are similar, especially when focusing on employee issues. Building a strong, new community can leverage the potential positive impact of the merger (Giffords & Dina, 2003). Giffords and Dina outlined a number of phases that should be considered when organizations go through during a merger process. These factors are: (a) Initial phase; (b) Integration of personnel and programs phase; (c) Merging of organizational cultures; (d) Building trust; (e) Communication; and (f) Developing a shared vision. We will discuss our experiences of the merger and reorganization of the School of Social Work with the College of Human Ecology utilizing the phases outlined by Giffords and Dina (2003). Initial Phase This first phase is comprised of uncertainties, ambiguities, frustration, fear, and anger. A rhetorical question that we asked was: “Why is this happening to us?” In the initial discussions about merging departments, one of the first considerations is whether anyone’s job will be lost as a result of the merger. Unlike corporate America, which is more transactional and contractual concerning staff, and where job loss is often an inescapable outcome of reorganization, we observed that in the university the atmosphere is more collegial and considerate. Therefore, the authors’ perceived that faculty job security was a top priority of the university management. However, despite the assurance of the faculty’s employment, we observed that there was a noticeable communication gap which accentuated faculty anxiety, suspicion, and uncertainty. In retrospect, it would have been appreciated if the leadership of the college had invested sufficient time to communicate job security to all faculty and administrative staff as a top priority of the merger and reorganization process. Furthermore, unlike the business sector, which operates a topdown and hierarchical administrative structure with little or no communication from lower level staff, we realized during our merger and reorganization process that the university management provided opportunity for discussion. However the opportunity was not fully maximized, and therefore, open and frank discussions about the merger was almost non-existent. One advantage of open discussion about an imminent merger and reorganization is that it allows the faculty to have input in the decision-making process. Communication gap during this phase raises the likelihood of faculty members not buying into the merger and reorganization process. Conducive Environment for Discussion Closely related with open discussion is that faculty and staff should be allowed to voice their concerns with a reassuring and non-retributive environment. It is the role of administrators to ensure that every faculty member has an opportunity to voice their concern without feeling that they are in jeopardy, or vulnerable to retaliation. From our experience, we noticed that it is extremely important to ensure that a junior faculty is not consciously or unconsciously intimidated by the possibility of a non-tenure vote, and/or non-merit pay increase. For instance one of the authors was
6
A. C. ADEDOYIN ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
a junior faculty during the merger process and he remembers the disappointment and uncertainty he felt because of the lack of communication. During this phase, it is extremely important for administrators to convey the message that different opinions are valued and respected. Equally important is the role of senior faculty members in fostering a safe environment. Communicating openly and honestly with administrators sets the tone for all of the following phases during this process. It is the responsibility of the senior faculty to take a leadership role in this process by determining, along with junior faculty, the importance of the merger, its impact, and transitional issues that will serve to benefit the reorganizational process.
Organizing Clusters Successful mergers have been noted to be a complicated process, because it amalgamates different entities that have historically been autonomous or free-standing (DePamphilis, 2011; Schein, 2010). The parties involved can begin to build new meaning by exposing the different elements of the reorganized units to each other. From our experience in our social work program we posit that one way to do this is to form organizing clusters to assess and evaluate total college needs. The cluster should consist of faculty representatives from all merging units or programs, including representatives from administrative staff. While consideration should be given to losses, the focus should be placed on the enlarged pool of resources that is now available to each of the program entities. Utilizing a strengths-based model, the focus is to consider all changes in light of how to best maximize resources that are available in order to make each individual unit a stronger entity unto itself, thereby creating a strong whole. The atmosphere of organizing clusters of faculty and administrative staff provides an opportunity for each individual unit to become a stronger entity through self-assessment and empowerment. Giffords and Dina (2003) states that few faculty members are involved in merger decision-making processes. It is therefore important to move in a direction in which individuals within each unit feel that their unit has been strengthened by its incorporation into a larger mission. Our experiences suggest that utilizing the expertise of faculty and staff, and creating an integration of personnel and programs can accomplish this task.
Integration of Personnel and Programs The second phase involves the merger of personnel from each program unit, and this second phase is critical in the smooth transitional phase of the reorganization. Each unit involved should meet together as soon as possible to discuss program similarities and differences, and how they each fit into the schema of the new entity or college. It is crucial to expedite this process, because it is important for each unit to eliminate the mystery of the other. This can be accomplished by understanding the history of each unit, and considering common elements. We drew a lot of understanding to go through this phase by drawing from the cultural competence literature. Cultural competence suggests the need to recognize, understand, respect, and acknowledge differences, while focusing on the students, (in our case) who are considered the common factor that brings both the professors and the departments together (Moodian, 2009; Moule & Diller, 2012). In organization merger the concept of cultural competence also applies. Without students, no unit or department would be necessary within the university system. Therefore, the focus should not be on individual faculty members or departments, but on how best we can serve students despite the diversity of philosophy and pedagogy of the six different departments.
FACULTY EXPERIENCES OF MERGER IN SOCIAL WORK
7
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
Faculty and Program Diversity The literature is replete with the benefits of diversity as a by-product of strengthening academic programs in a university (Lang, 2003; Langley et al., 2012; Locke, 2007; Pinderhughes, 1989, 1997; Seo & Hill, 2005). But what does this new-found diversified college offer each individual program entity? For example, what do a criminal justice department and school of social work have in common? Why and what can these program entities consider that make this merger a good fit? Pinderhughes (1989, 1997) suggests that it is not important to continuously focus on differences, but the important element is to consider the similarities and how each can strengthen the other. Methods of strengthening each other can be demonstrated in many different forms. For us we observed that policies and procedures can be unified to maintain crucial elements that are germane to each unit. Departmental programs and ceremonies can be combined, and still preserve the values and customs of each discipline. For example, social work students and faculty can maintain the self determination that is an important component of their code of ethics, while criminal justice students and faculty can maintain their need to focus on law and order and due process. In this instance both programs stress the importance of respecting the client and/or offender. The major understanding is that the students should be educated and trained to work with a population of individuals, groups, and communities who are the same individuals, but in need of different interventions. Similarly, we saw potentials for faculty collaboration between social work and nutrition science, especially as it relates to addressing health disparities and eating choices of minorities. Thus, the college values and customs will assist with the overall mission of each of the individual units within the college. Consequently, blended values and customs can emerge from the culture of programs. Moreover, respecting the unique values and culture of each program provides a platform to develop an organizational culture that encompasses the cultural values of all merged units.
MERGING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES According to Kreitner (2004) organizational culture is an important component that can make or break the organization. Organizational culture according to Schein is: A composite of the beliefs, perceptions, and behaviors of individuals and groups within the organization, which are utilized as coping mechanisms to survive both internal and external issues. These strategies are passed on to incoming employees as a valid mechanism for functioning in the organizational environment. (Schein, 1992, p. 494 as cited by Giffords & Dina, 2003)
The challenge in merging several university units is a complex issue. It is more herculean to establish a unified organizational culture where previously autonomous units had their distinct program and cultural ethos. In our experience it was not surprising to note that there was resistance in consolidating different programs organizational cultures into a new organizational culture for the merged programs. Culture has fostered and nurtured all of the factors that created the uniqueness of each unit. The strategy is not to ask each unit to give up their culture, but to seek understanding of each unit’s culture. As the units are evaluating their own culture, they can modify, strengthen, or eliminate norms that are no longer relevant. Therefore merger of academic units provides an opportunity to allow faculty and staff time to reflect on existing organizational culture and decide whether there is a need to make changes. Because cultural changes may elicit feelings of sadness, anger, and a sense of loss, Giffords & Dina suggest that this is an area that creates what they term “management dilemma” (p. 75). Administratively, the task for the administrative team is to put the merger in shape as fast as possible. But in reality, the administration has to also be cognizant of the need to be mindful of the pain that the units may be experiencing, and that the need to adjust to the identity loss may take
8
A. C. ADEDOYIN ET AL.
some time. Thus, the goal for the administration is to ensure that “all faculty and staff can engage in the period of processing, but continue to move on to create a shared vision” (p. 75). One strategy for accomplishing this shared vision we recommend, is to build and strengthen a sense of trust among faculty and staff.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
Building Trust Kreiter and Kinicki (2012) further states that building trust is an important component in the merger process. Like other phases, this fourth phase will take time and a great deal of effort on the part of the administration, as well as faculty and staff. However, the building trust can begin with open and honest dialogue. From our experience, we realized that one of the major premises of the open and honest dialogue scheme is to understand that everyone makes mistakes. A reality must be established that mistakes will be made, with an assumption that despite the mistake, everyone is working for the good of the organization. Moreover one strategy that has proven to be very effective in the authors’ experiences in building trust is the transparency rule of keeping everyone in the loop, and soliciting views, comments, questions, and concerns. When transparency is absent, assumptions are made to fill the vacuum of information, and they are usually neither accurate nor positive. As much as possible, information must be made available to everyone, and allow everyone an equal opportunity to accomplish his or her individual goals within the organization. A corollary is the “No Surprises” rule. Not knowing what is happening until after it does tends to make individuals feel powerless and abused (Bloom & Farragher, 2011). This feeling of victimization feeds their fear, and drastically increases resistance. Proactively explaining changes and the need for them before they take place can greatly reduce surprises and their negative impacts. Fostering open communication through collaborative projects will allow opportunities for building trust not only among units and individuals, but with administration as well. This practice eliminates or at least minimizes the “we/they” syndrome, and fosters a “we-ness” persona in the merging units. An arena where honest and open communication takes place provides an opportunity for the development of a shared vision. Building trust is not going to be accomplished overnight. Evaluations and assessments are crucial and necessary components of the ongoing merger process. External consultants who are neutral resources can assist with moving the process forward. Outside consultants offer another perspective by helping faculty, staff, and administration consider factors that may not have been as evident to them, because of personal or organizational investments. The consultants’ role is clearly to facilitate and make suggestions, enhance communication, and feedback that will be in the best interest of the organization.
Communications There is a tendency in times of challenge and threat to isolate a unit or even a faculty during the merger process. In merger situations initiated from the university administration, it is common for units to bind more together. This, however, will lead to further isolation, insulation, and the inability of the new group to overcome their newness, and to form a new-shared meaning and purpose. Both verbal and written communication is crucial to the reorganization process. The purpose, goals, and objectives of the reorganization process must be clearly communicated to faculty and staff in order to limit feelings of isolation (Griffin, 2008). Communication can, in part, overcome the natural tendency to become isolated. By receiving accurate and timely information about what is happening, the sense of threat and challenge is greatly reduced. By opening dialogue among the units, it is possible to see commonality of experience, and students become the focus. The opportunity to form and create new-shared
FACULTY EXPERIENCES OF MERGER IN SOCIAL WORK
9
meaning is enhanced with open and honest dialogue, which can enrich not only the quality of life among colleagues, but can also enhance the sense of community within the newly-created college. Communicating information is crucial, and must be methodical, consistent, frequent, and relevant. There must be multiple methods of communicating with faculty and staff, and an understanding that one method does not fit all. Some faculty still utilizes face-to-face communication, while others prefer email. Some others are more inclined to use the telephone. We suggest from experience that a strategy is to use all of the methods to communicate information to faculty and staff. If an error is to occur, it is best to err on the side of too much information than not enough.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
Developing a Shared Vision In a strength-based model of change, the resulting vision of the future offers the promise of things getting better. With a positive focus on what the future can be, and with a primary focus on how best to serve the interest of the students, it is possible to find new meaning as a group through shared vision. Sharing the new vision of merged units is a very important phase in organizational change. It is the role of the both the senior faculty, and the administrative team to lead the path to creating innovative visions that will foster organizational cultural change (Packard, 2000). The goal of maintaining an environment that allows faculty, staff, students, and administrators to work together to accomplish a shared vision can provide the impetus for positive progression of the merger and organizational change process.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION AND ADMINISTRATION Change is inevitable in life, and is therefore inescapable in the university setting. Current economic and political trends indicate that the academic world—and by implication, social work programs— will have to become more business-like. This typically requires rationing resources and programs, and can result in both wanted and unwanted reorganizations. While a select few may make the decision to merge university program units into one college, it is important that social work administrators and faculty fully involved in the process communicate their concerns, issues, fears, and questions openly and honestly. The way in which the change is perceived by faculty and staff of a social work program has a strong impact on the student population, which is the most important stakeholder in this process. The focus should be on how to make this merger the least intrusive for students, and how they can gain from such a merger. When the focus is on the students of each unit, an atmosphere of working toward the betterment of students will be created. Change is often uncomfortable, but we suggest that if social work program faculty can utilize the strengths perspective during the merger process, it provides an opportunity to look within and capitalize on resources for students that were not available prior to the merger. When social work programs that may be affected by merger and reorganization view the process as opportunities to build a new and more efficient college, stronger university community, and when appropriate community-building activities are undertaken, a number of positive impacts can occur. First, there is more opportunity to collaborate with colleagues in different disciplines who are now a part of the same college. Second, there are more budgetary resources where units can pool their funds and share resources. Third, faculty and staff assignments can be reconfigured to enhance student and teaching performance, grant writing, publications, committee work, and a new type of fostered interaction within students of different disciplines. Another implication of merger and reorganization is that social work faculty should work hard at remaining mentally and physically healthy. Change often creates immediate reactions, and those reactions can foster anger, frustration, confusion, and detachment and isolation. These conditions, if allowed to persist, can cause serious health issues. Health and stress issues were major challenges
10
A. C. ADEDOYIN ET AL.
to some faculty during our merger experience. A proactive stance would be to work in partnership with other faculty to keep healthy.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
CONCLUSION Merger and organizational change can be a complex shift from the status quo. When change involves the merging of program units on a university campus, there is need to carefully consider the impact of the change for the students, faculty, administration, university, and community. Change in academia is even more complex than change in the corporate world due to several unique aspects, including the tenure system, pluralistic governance, the perception of academic freedom, sense of independence, and a somewhat vague sense of shared purpose with the larger university community. Social work programs and faculty should be prepared for organizational change and merger, and draw from the strengths perspective when transitioning through the merger process. Although there are numerous factors that can assist in this transition, we identify three major factors are strongly suggested: open and honest communication, building trust, and development of a shared vision (Giffords and Dina, 2003; Packard, 2000). Organizational change can be a healthy process, and the merging of program units should not be about the amalgamation of two or more programs. Due diligence and consideration should be given to the organizational culture that existed prior to the merger, and careful consideration should be given to how the new organizational culture could integrate the core values and ethos of the merging units. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The study’s journaling was conducted while the first author was a faculty member at the School of Social Work, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
REFERENCES Albrithen, A., & Yalli, N. (2011). The perception of organizational issues of social work practitioners in Saudi hospitals. Journal of Social Service Research, 38, 273– 291. doi:10.1080/01488376.2011.619390 Berger, C. S., Cayner, J., Jensen, G., Mizrahi, T., Scesny, A., & Trachtenberg, J. (1996). The changing scene of social work in hospitals: A report of a national study by the society for social work administrators in health care and nasw. Health & Social Work, 21, 167–177. doi:10.1093/hsw/21.3.167 Berger, C. S., Robbins, C., Lewis, M., Mizrahi, T., & Fleit, S. (2003). The impact of organizational change on social work staffing in a hospital setting. Social Work in Health Care, 37, 1–18. doi:10.1300/J010v37n01_01 Bloom, S. L., & Farragher, B. J. (2011). Destroying sanctuary: The crisis in human service delivery systems. Oxford, UK; and New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Blostein, S. (1999). Social work education and university restructuring. Arete, 23, 23–39. Capaldi, E. D. (2011). Budget cuts and educational quality. Academe, 97, 10–13. Cohen, M. D., & Jennings, G. (2005). Mergers involving academic medical institutions: Impact on academic radiology departments. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2, 174 –182. DePamphilis, D. (2011). Mergers, acquisitions, and other restructuring activities an integrated approach to process, tools, cases, and solutions (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Academic Press. Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press. Gardner, J. W. (1995). The new leadership agenda. In Gozdz Kazimierz (Ed.), Community building: Renewing spirit and learning in business. San Francisco, CA: Sterling & Stone. Giffords, E. D., & Dina, R. P. (2003). Changing organizational cultures. Administration in Social Work, 27, 69–81. doi:10. 1300/J147v27n01_05 Ginsberg, L. H. (2008). Management and leadership in social work practice and education. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
FACULTY EXPERIENCES OF MERGER IN SOCIAL WORK
11
Globerman, J., White, J., & McDonald, G. (2002). Social work in restructuring hospitals: Program management five years later. Health & Social Work, 27, 274 –284. doi:10.1093/hsw/27.4.274 Goldman, G. A. (2012). Exploring academics’ experiences of a merger in higher education: The reflective experience of mergers (REM) framework. African Journal of Business Management, 6, 4862–4879. doi:10.5897/AJBM11.2137 Griffin, R. W. (2008). Management. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Gummer, B. (1995). Reinventing, restructuring, and the big bang theory of organizational change. Administration in Social Work, 19, 83 –97. doi:10.1300/J147v19n03_06 Halter, A., & Gullerud, E. (1995). Academic mergers in social work programs: Autonomy or disharmony? Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 269–280. Harman, K. (2002). Merging divergent campus cultures into coherent educational communities: Challenges for higher education leaders. Higher Education, 44, 91–114. doi:10.1023/A:1015565112209 Heinonen, T., MacKay, I., Metteri, A., & Pajula, M. (2001). Social work and health restructuring in Canada and Finland. Social Work in Health Care, 34, 71 –87. doi:10.1080/00981380109517018 Hildreth, C. R., & Koenig, M. (2002). Organizational realignment of LIS programs in academia: From independent standalone units to incorporated programs. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 43, 126– 133. Kohoutek, J. (2012). Three decades of implementation research in higher education: Limitations and prospects of theory development. Higher Education Quarterly, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2012.00531.x Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kottler, J. A. (1992). Compassionate therapy: Working with difficult clients. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kreitner, R. (2004). Foundations of management: Basics and best practices. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2012). Organizational behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Lang, D. W. (2003). The future of merger: What do we want mergers to do: Efficiency or diversity? Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 33, 19– 46. Langley, A., Golden-Biddle, K., Reay, T., Denis, J., He´bert, Y., Lamothe, L., & Gervais, J. (2012). Identity struggles in merging organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 48, 135–167. doi:10.1177/0021886312438857 Locke, W. (2007). Higher education mergers: Integrating organisational cultures and developing appropriate management styles. Higher Education Quarterly, 61, 83–102. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2006.00339.x Lovejoy, F. H., Nathan, D. G., Zuckerman, B. S., Pizzo, P. A., Fleisher, G. R., & Vinci, R. J. (2008). The merger of two pediatric residency programs: Lessons learned. The Journal of Pediatrics, 153, 731–732. McMurtry, S. L., & McClelland, R. W. (1997). Class sizes, faculty workloads, and program structures: How MSW programs have responded to changes in their environments. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 307 –320. Michalski, J. H., Creighton, E., & Jackson, L. (2000). The impact of hospital restructuring on social work services. Social Work in Health Care, 30, 1– 26. doi:10.1300/J010v30n02_01 Mills, M., Bettis, P., Miller, J. W., & Nolan, R. (2005). Experiences of academic unit reorganization: Organizational identity and identification in organizational change. Review of Higher Education, 28, 597–619. Mizrahi, T., & Berger, C. S. (2005). A longitudinal look at social work leadership in hospitals: The impact of a changing health care system. Health & Social Work, 30, 155–165. doi:10.1093/hsw/30.2.155 Moodian, M. A. (2009). Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within organizations. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Moule, J., & Diller, J. V. (2012). Cultural competence: A primer for educators. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Neese, W. T., & Batory, S. S. (2005). Autonomous versus merged marketing departments: The impact of current department structure and previous restructuring experience on faculty perceptions. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 219 –238. doi:10.1177/0273475305279527 Neuman, K. (2003). The effect of organizational reengineering on job satisfaction for staff in hospital social work departments. Social Work in Health Care, 36, 19 –33. doi:10.1300/J010v36n04_02 Orden, D., & Gilles, R. (2002). The merger of two economics Ph.D. programs at Virginia Tech. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84, 847– 853. Packard, T. (2000). The management audit as a teaching tool in social work administration. Journal of Social Work Education, 36, 39–52. Pinderhughes, E. (1989). Understanding race, ethnicity, and power: The key to efficacy in clinical practice. New York, NY: Free Press. Pinderhughes, E. (1997). Developing diversity competence in child welfare and permanency planning. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 5, 19–38. doi:10.1300/J285v05n01_03 Pratt, M. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification. In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 17–31). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pratt, M. (2001). Social identity dynamics in modern organizations: An organizational psychology/organizational behavior perspective. In M. Hogg & D. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 13–30). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 09:21 10 November 2015
12
A. C. ADEDOYIN ET AL.
Reinardy, J., & Halter, A. (1994). Social work in academia: A case study of survival. Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 300 –309. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Seo, M., & Hill, N. S. (2005). Understanding the human side of merger and acquisition. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 422–443. doi:10.1177/0021886305281902 Siegfried, J. J. (2002). Economic mergers in academe: A discussion of academic mergers in economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84, 863 –866. doi:10.1111/1467-8276.00351 Siler, W. L., & Royeen, C. B. (2007). Guiding principles in a merger of allied health and nursing schools. Journal of Allied Health, 36, 24 –29. Slocombe, P. (2003). Using strengths-based practice to support culture change. Journal of Social Work in Long-Term Care, 2, 307–323. doi:10.1300/J181v02n03_09 Tight, M. (2012). Researching higher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Walpole, M. (2000). Under construction: Identity and isomorphism in the merger of a library and information science school and an education school. The Library Quarterly, 70, 423–445. Wan, Y., & Peterson, M. W. (2007). A case study of a merger in Chinese higher education: The motives, processes, and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 683– 696. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.07.007 Zungolo, E. H. (2003). Nursing and academic mergers of the health sciences: A critique. Nursing Outlook, 51, 52 –58. doi:10. 1016/S0029-6554(02)05452-0
