Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning

ISSN: 0009-1383 (Print) 1939-9146 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/vchn20

From Tall to Matrix: Redefining Organizational

Structures

Christine Johnson McPhail

To cite this article: Christine Johnson McPhail (2016) From Tall to Matrix: Redefining
Organizational Structures, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 48:4, 55-62, DOI:
10.1080/00091383.2016.1198189

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2016.1198189

Published online: 22 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3952

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vchn20
 From Tall to Matrix
Redefining Organizational Structures
By Christine Johnson McPhail

In Short
• While community colleges have launched
numerous new student success interventions,
they have not changed organizational
structures to deliver them.
• The rigidity of the traditional hierarchical
management structure does not allow
institutions to adapt to wide-scale
organizational change.
• A matrix structure reduces program
coordination difficulties by bringing cross-
functional employees together to concentrate
everyone’s attention on the requirements of a
particular project.
• The structures needed for a college to
deliver programming in a matrix operating
environment — resource coordination,
specialization, flexibility, communication —
can be identified, developed, and sustained.
• The continued use of traditional hierarchical
structures restricts colleges from facilitating
fast moving and responsive student success
agendas.

www.changemag.org 55
Introduction
In 2012, the American Association of Community
College’s 21st Century Commission on the Future of
Community Colleges called on community colleges to
“Increase completion rates of students earning commu-
nity college credentials (certificates and associate degrees)
by 50% by 2020, while preserving access and enhancing
quality.” (2012, p. 14). More recently, Bailey, Jaggers,
and Jenkins (2015) presented data that current programs,
services, and practices are not improving student success
at community colleges despite massive reform efforts and
extensive expenditures. They challenged community col-
leges to rethink ways in which they organize programs.
Although some recent reform efforts have increased
student success and completion outcomes, a deeper exami-
nation of the changes and reforms taking place suggest a
broader assessment is needed. The formulation of strate-
gies to improve student success represents only half of the
equation. The other half, more complex and challenging, is
ensuring institutions match these strategies for student suc-
cess with organizational structures that allow the colleges to
deliver them.
The call for change and redesign of organizational struc-
tures is not new. O’Banion (1997) pointed out the tradi-
tional limits on higher education (time-bound, place-bound,
bureaucracy-bound, and role-bound) that keep institutions
from moving forward and responding to change. All four of
O’Banion’s structural deficits continue to place significant
limitations on the ability of community colleges to make
effective changes in the way they conduct their business.
How colleges manage institutional efforts has a tremen-
dous effect on the delivery of programs and services, how
employees interact with each other and students, and the
overall culture of the institution.
This article examines traditional organizational structures
of community colleges and how traditional hierarchal struc-
tures influence delivery of programs and services. The point
is to reveal ways in which community colleges can change
organizational structures to more effectively implement
key reform and student success efforts through a “matrix”
approach.
New Wine in Old Wineskins
Despite the fact that numerous community college reform
efforts have been launched, not many institutions have made
changes or modified the way that they are organized to
Christine Johnson McPhail is a senior professor for the
Roueche Graduate Center of National American University
and a member of NAU’s National Community College
Advisory Board; director emeritus, Community College
Leadership Doctoral Program, Morgan State University;
and, president emeritus, Cypress College. She is a leader-
ship coach with Achieving the Dream.
56
The point is to reveal ways in
which community colleges can
change organizational structures
to more effectively implement
key reform and student success
efforts through a ‘matrix’
approach.
execute the new initiatives. The question then is: have com-
munity colleges aligned their organizational structures to fit
the complexity of today’s new programs? The answer is sug-
gested by the biblical phrase: “Neither do people pour new
wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the
wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they
pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved”
(Matthew 9:17, NIV).
To achieve the agility, productivity, and innovation needed
in community college reform, leaders must stop pouring new
programs into old organizational structures. Community col-
leges need radically new and different organizational struc-
tures that support program and service delivery (McPhail,
2013). The manner in which some colleges are forcing new
initiatives into existing ways of doing business is akin to
pouring new wine into old wineskins, resulting in a kind of
spillage without improvement in student success.
Barriers to Successful Change
As community colleges struggle with their reform reali-
ties, many face two barriers—one strategic and the other
structural. The strategic barrier arises when colleges imple-
ment small pilot interventions to solve large, complex, and
dynamic problems. The attraction of this approach for some
practitioners is easy to understand; launching small initia-
tives or pilot programs requires few or no changes and mini-
mizes conflict between different administrators who may be
supervising different divisions at the college. In traditional
structures, a pilot project is usually under the sole respon-
sibility of one administrator. The strategic reality for many
community colleges is that both their institutional cultures
and their organizational structures really are more complex
than the solutions demonstrated in small-scale interventions.
The realization that small-scale interventions have not
produced desired results, however, confronts many institu-
tions with equally threatening organizational challenges. It
becomes clear that a more effective response to increasingly
Change • July/August 2016
complex strategic requirements may be new wineskins.
Thus the second barrier, traditional organizational structures,
requires they contemplate and attempt to implement a very
different approach to promoting change.
As Walter Bumphus, President of AACC puts it,
“Community colleges cannot be strong by being the same.”
Certain values remain constant: opportunity, equity, aca-
demic excellence. As the Commission report asserts, if com-
munity colleges are to enact those values in the 21st cen-
tury, “virtually everything else must change” (2012, p. 20).
Taking on bold ideas and dramatic change is the only way to
meet college completion goals.
But, it is not easy to change organizational structures in
complex organizations. “Structure” refers to how individual
and team efforts within an organization are coordinated. To
achieve organizational goals and objectives, individual work
needs to be coordinated and managed. Structure is a valu-
able tool in achieving coordination, as it specifies reporting
relationships (who reports to whom), delineates formal com-
munication channels, and describes how separate actions of
individuals are linked together (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006).
The capacity to implement programs and services that
require multiple, simultaneous management capabilities is
well beyond the traditional bureaucratic organizational struc-
tures and cultures operating in most community colleges
(Kotter, 2007; Boggs, 2004; McPhail et al., 2001). In some
cases, for a variety of reasons, stakeholders resist the changes
accompanying the interventions. The source of the resistance
may be as simple as the employees were comfortable with
the way the college was run (Strebel, 2006). They know the
expectations and their role within their units. They don’t want
to relearn their jobs or change the way they do things.
The sluggish progress of student success efforts may
be traced to these structural issues, to how institutions are
organized. In far too many cases, the act of developing stu-
dent success strategies has been regarded as an end in itself,
under the assumption that the strategies would be properly
administered and the goals accomplished. In too many cases,
community college educators and researchers overlooked the
fact that strategy development is ineffective without organi-
zational structures to promote and support them. There is a
huge gap between the strategies adopted to improve student
success and organization management practices to success-
fully execute them.
Leadership: “Tall” and “Matrix”
The traditional organizational structures in community
colleges involve a “tall” (hierarchical) model. Tall leader-
ship structures can be functional or divisional, e.g., the
academic affairs division or student affairs division. As the
name “division” suggests, units are organized by function,
each of which typically operates as an independent “entity”
within the college (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). In most institu-
tions, the power to execute programs and services belongs
to an “administrative” position of authority. The person in
the “position” typically assigns duties and responsibilities
according to an employee’s classification rather than abili-
ties, interests, or talents (Cole, 2004).
An alternative to the tall model is a more distributed,
“matrix” approach. For example, Ostroff (1999) argues that
companies are becoming more horizontal than vertical as
the world globalizes, because customers will demand fast
response times and better service—two demands horizontal
companies excel at. Ostroff’s concept can be applied to the
contemporary community college; stakeholders, including
students, expect fast responses to their learning and other
needs. Unfortunately, in practice, the old hierarchal bureau-
cracies and silos in many of the nation’s community colleges
are obstructing effective and efficient delivery of services. It
is this failure to adapt to change that drives the need to adopt
a more organic organizational form such as a matrix organi-
zational structure.
Today, the most successful community colleges are those
in which leaders recognize they are in fact managing new

Table 1. Comparison Organization Structures

Traditional Functional Organization Matrix Organization
Independent behavior Interdependent behavior
Functional-only focus Process/product focus primary with functional supporting
Cross-functional teams and steering councils governance
Top down governance
(democratic and delegating)
Command and control management practices Alignment and influence management practices
Linear thinking System thinking
Optimize the parts as goal Optimize the whole as goal
Problem solve through reductionism to in-
Manage the interfaces to increase effectiveness
crease effectiveness
(Agility Consulting, 2016)

www.changemag.org 57
environments by focusing less on their position or authority
and more on empowering all stakeholders to make contribu-
tions to the institution (Boggs & McPhail, 2001). Gumport
(2000) points out when colleges engage in a change process,
constituent groups need to know why change is important,
how much change is needed, and what might be the best
approach to implement the change. As McClenney and
McClenney (2010) put it, “Leadership for student success is
a particular kind of leadership; it involves values, disposi-
tions, and skill sets that are not necessarily prominent in tra-
ditional versions of the higher education leadership profile”
(2012, p.9).
A matrix organizational structure is a way to produce this
kind of leadership (see Table I). What is a matrix structure?
It is an organization that shares power along and among
two or more dimensions (Agility Consulting, 2016). It has
the capacity for vertical and horizontal chains of command
that cut across functional divisions that are prominent in
traditional organizational structures. It provides a platform
for leaders to harness employees’ expertise without being
concerned about assigned divisions, titles, or positions in
the workplace (Hall, 2012). In the matrix organization, the
matrix manager can identify the employees or resources
needed to achieve—based on the strategic plan—the col-
lege’s key priorities.
There are many advantages of the matrix organizational
model. Unlike traditional hierarchal structures, the matrix
organizational structure divides authority both by functional
area and by project. In this structure, each employee answers
to two immediate supervisors: a functional supervisor and a
project supervisor (Hall, 2012). The functional supervisor is
charged with overseeing employees in a functional area such
as advising or tutoring. Project supervisors would manage a
special or temporary project.
Unlike traditional hierarchal
structures, the matrix
organizational structure divides
authority both by functional area
and by project. In this structure,
each employee answers to two
immediate supervisors: a
functional supervisor and a
project supervisor.
58
The matrix structure is more effective because it reduces
program coordination difficulties by bringing cross-func-
tional employees together to concentrate everyone’s atten-
tion on requirements of a particular project. Horney and
O’Shea (2015) identify two major outcomes that occur in
matrix structures:
1. A
 simultaneous focus on multiple perspectives. A
matrix makes a person or unit responsive to more than
one group. This introduction of multiple perspectives
can be expected to improve decision quality.
2. More effective use of technical and specialized
resources. Every organization has specialists who are
needed by various business units. These experts are
too expensive to duplicate across the organization. The
matrix allows for sharing of human resources without
having one unit own them.
“Being successful in this environment requires a trans-
formation in how an organization operates, in how it thinks
about itself, and in how it is led” (2015, p. 2).
Of course matrix organizations have their disadvantages
too. Since a matrix approach typically combines divisional
and functional structures, some employees may experi-
ence confusion about reporting to two supervisors. Power
struggles may also emerge between supervisors in the matrix
organization. If not monitored properly, the tension between
employees and supervisors may undercut the effectiveness
of managers and the matrix structure as a whole.
Therefore, collaboration and communication is essential
in the matrix organization (Goldratt and Cox, 2002). Before
taking a matrix approach, leaders must establish appropriate
meeting times to coordinate tasks as a regular part of doing
business, a preventative measure that keeps the organization
running smoothly. Additionally, institutions adopting the
structure must realize that the success of such meetings and
the organization itself are dependent on the interpersonal,
communication, and conflict resolution skills of employees
and administrators.
Matrix Organizations and Student Success
As the demands for change and reform increase, the
potential drawbacks of traditional, divisional structures are
increasingly more evident. For example, a key requirement
for reform initiatives such as Completion by Design and
Achieving the Dream was expanding the role of faculty in
creating a coherent pathway for students into and through
their program of study. However, a major problem identified
by many Achieving the Dream institutions was their inability
to engage faculty to work with others in building such path-
ways. The evaluation of the reform efforts shows that much
of the work happened outside the classroom, with student
services personnel and others moving the needle on credential
Change • July/August 2016

In a matrix structure, as problems
arise, an intervention team can
accommodate project changes
rapidly with integration into the
overall work at the college. If
interventions require revisions in
design or in completed work, the
project manager can make the
appropriate decisions with his or
her team based on his proximity
to the work and their advice.
completion. But that is not enough; it is difficult to execute
large scale reform efforts without strong faculty engagement
(MDRC, 2011; Roueche, Roueche, & Milliorn, 1996).
If these institutions had used a matrix structure, the pro-
ject manager for the student success work would have been
able to tap into all units of the college to staff reform efforts.
The matrix organizational structure allows flexibility and
interdisciplinary interaction to produce maximum results
(Goldratt & Cox, 2002). The constraints of traditional hier-
archal structures are removed in the matrix organization; the
focus is on execution rather than division or authority.
In a matrix structure, as problems arise, an intervention
team can accommodate project changes rapidly with inte-
gration into the overall work at the college. If interventions
require revisions in design or in completed work, the project
manager can make the appropriate decisions with his or her
team based on his proximity to the work and their advice. If
the changes include new workers, a matrix organization lets
the project manager send people from different departments
while adding to the team new people with corresponding
expertise or capabilities matching the changes.
In a community college, the matrix organization flexibility
has the capacity to produce excellent project outcomes for
student success initiatives. A good example of a success-
ful matrix-driven reform is the work of Cesar Maldonado,
Chancellor at the Houston Community College System
(HCC). The system educates over 113,000 students annu-
ally and is the top developer of workforce opportunities
in Houston. Maldonado aggressively launched a matrix
www.changemag.org
organizational structure, explicitly shifting the focus of the
employees and facilities to the matrix structure.
The matrix structure was compatible with the direction
Maldonado wanted to take HCC, because it permitted more
efficient exchanges of information among the five campuses.
Maldonado also envisioned that the matrix organization
would result in a more efficient use of HCC’s resources than
the traditional hierarchical model that he inherited (HCC
Transformation I, 2015). Referring to the changes he made
in the organizational structure, Maldonado commented:
“Our role is to teach, motivate, inspire, connect, innovate,
and expand our reach” (Maldonado, Transformation II, HCC
Administrators Presentation, December 5, 2015). Students,
Maldonado argued, should be able to receive the same level
of education from any of the HCC campuses.
With the future of HCC focused on education and innova-
tive programs, the college is moving both Houston and its
students forward. HCC will use a Balanced Scorecard to
align and integrate their decentralized operational units. This
decentralization of business units makes it possible for the
campus administrators to focus on delivering high quality
services to students.
Further, under HCC’s matrix structure, all operational
units, in conjunction with college administration, will design
metrics and identify co-champions for each objective identi-
fied in the institution’s strategic plan.
During his 2016 State of the College Address, Maldonado
highlighted key accomplishments at HCC, including:
• A
 22 percent increase in graduates over last year
• Partnerships with colleges/universities across the state
and beyond
• Ranking number one in awarding Associate Degrees to
all minorities
• Ranking number one for international student enroll-
ment among U.S. community colleges
• A
 first-of-its-kind plan to waive out-of-district fees for
all high school students in the Dual Credit program
Critical to HCC’s efforts has been the capacity to access
real time data to provide insight into how the strategic plan
is being executed across the system. Further, an Institutional
Assessment Committee (appointed by the Chancellor)
comprised of a cross section of internal stakeholders and
senior level officials established a reporting, evaluation, and
assessment cycle to bolster progress of the system’s strate-
gic plan and maintain an environment of continuous quality
improvement.
As Kimberly Beatty, Vice Chancellor, Instructional
Services and Chief Academic Officer at HCC put it, “I
am all over the system, working in the matrix requires
higher level of self-leadership and ownership of your own
goals and role. At HCC, we are all enhancing our skills to
59

Accountability in a matrix
organization can be ambiguous.
Role clarity is a crucial issue
for effective interprofessional
collaboration necessary in
a teaching and learning
environment focused on
student success.
strengthen the matrix mindset and the skill -set that we need
to succeed in order to navigate this complex form of orga-
nization” (personal communication, February 9, 2016). The
matrix organizational structure allows the project environ-
ment, project requirements, and project components to inter-
act in an optimal manner to produce excellent results. Rather
than being constrained by organizational structure, a matrix–
focused project lets the institution adapt to project require-
ments and promotes excellence across the entire institution.
From Tall to Matrix
Large-scale student success requires institutions to
change. Regardless of the student success intervention
adopted, responsibility for the quality of the effort must be
a shared responsibility across the units within the college.
Successful student success or completion programs are not
the creation of any single campus entity. Institutions that
believe success can be achieved solely through the engage-
ment of one department or division may experience some
short-term success, but will typically find this momentum
hard to sustain over time without an attendant institution-
wide commitment to the effort. The matrix organizational
structure allows institutions to embrace the overlapping
responsibilities related to implementing large-scale student
success and completion projects.
There are multiple steps institutors can take to transition
from tall to matrix structures to promote student success:
1. C
 onduct Goal Alignment: Ensure that administrators
and employees (from top to bottom) in the institution
(divisions, departments, units) are working together to
achieve the same goal—establish a common ground.
It is the president and leadership team’s responsibility
to identify key goals and priorities. A well-run matrix
organization creates higher levels of goal and role
ownership, demands empowerment and trust, and cre-
60
ates rich opportunities for learning and development.
(Hall, 2012)
2. Define the Matrix: The president must work with
teams throughout the institution to prioritize projects
and link the projects to budget and human resources.
The matrix leadership approach is democratic and
delagatory. The plan should establish and outline the
work of a cross-functional unit so that all projects and
goals can be managed. That unit will set priorities,
focus energy and resources, strengthen operations,
ensure that employees and other stakeholders are
working toward common goals, establish agree-
ment around intended outcomes/results, and assess and
adjust the organization’s direction in response to a stu-
dent success initiative.
3. Establish Key Performance Indicators: Key per-
formance indicators form an important part of the
information required to determine and explain how
an institution progresses towards its goal attainment
efforts. Performance indicators allow the team lead-
ers and senior leadership team to track and quickly
identify the status of project objectives, products and
processes within the strategic plan. Project teams have
the responsibility for assessing the benefits, outcomes,
and costs of targeted institutional priorities. Typically,
the institution will rely upon a central data collection
unit (such as Institutional Research) to explicitly con-
nect individual projects and processes to objectives and
align results of strategic priorities.
4. Conduct Role Clarification Sessions: Accountability in
a matrix organization can be ambiguous. Role clarity
is a crucial issue for effective inter-professional col-
laboration necessary in a teaching and learning envi-
ronment focused on student success. The president and
team leaders must ensure that employees know what is
expected. Poorly defined roles can become a source of
conflict in student success teams and reduce the effec-
tiveness of programs and services delivered to students
and employees.
5. Provide Professional Development: The matrix struc-
ture is not without challenges. One key challenge is
training existing employees to work in the new cross-
functional environment. Professional development can
reduce problems of competition and misunderstanding
by improving staff skills and competencies needed in
the matrix environment. Through professional devel-
opment, employees can be trained to understand their
roles within the team. Senior leadership and team
members must identify professional development
needs of employees when they design institutional pri-
orities and assign team members.
6. Build a Culture of Trust: Matrix teams depend on trust
and teamwork. In the matrix structure, team members
Change • July/August 2016
 are likely to have multiple loyalties. If not carefully
managed, these can create relationship problems and
negatively impact institutional outcomes. The president
or project managers can conduct a variety of activities
to build trust within the organization and among team
members: project kickoff meetings, role clarification
sessions, personality assessments of team members,
social events, rewards and recognitions, scoreboards,
and executive and team coaching. All of these have
been used by the Huston Community College System.
(The author served as Executive Coach to the HCC
campus presidents, facilitating team development and
improving communication.)
Designing and Organizing Reform
It is imperative that community colleges recognize that
simply designing new student success initiatives cannot
create significant improvement in student success out-
comes. Clearly, some community colleges can create new
programs successfully and have some results. However,
institutions need to align their new programs with organi-
zational structures that can move programs forward. The
structures needed for a college to deliver programming in
a matrix operating environment—resource coordination,
specialization, measured outcomes, flexibility, communica-
tion—can be identified, developed and sustained. As Tagg
notes,
The key to designing and executing productive institu-
tional change is not simply to build a better academic
mousetrap. Faculty will not beat a path to the doors
of those with the best arguments. We need to not only
design change for our institutions but also redesign our
institutions for change. At best, we must recognize that
we can’t change without changing. We cannot create a
better future unless we are willing to embrace a future
that is different from the past. (2012, p. 1)
The real question is whether colleges and community
college leaders will take the initiative to broaden their tradi-
tional notions of what it takes to build successful organiza-
tions. They need to start taking a closer look at implement-
ing crucial matrix-related organizational capabilities. The
sobering truth is that the continued use of traditional hierar-
chical structures restricts colleges from facilitating fast mov-
ing and responsive student success agendas. Simply invent-
ing new programs without considering changing the organi-
zational structures in which programs are offered limits the
full capacity of institutions to deliver needed programs and
services to students. C

Resources
n Alfred, R. L., & Carter, P. (1999). New colleges for a new century: Organizational change and development in
community colleges. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Volume XIV. New York, NY: Agatha
Press.
n American Association of Community Colleges. (2012). Reclaiming the American Dream: Community Colleges and
the Nation’s Future (p. 8). Washington, DC: 21st Century Commission on the Future of Community Colleges.
n Bailey, T. R., Jaggars, S. S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s community colleges: A clearer path to
student success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
n Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1990), Matrix management: not a structure: a frame of mind, Harvard Business
Review, 68(4), 138–145.
n Benjamin, R., & Carroll, S. J. (1996). Impediments and imperatives in restructuring higher education. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32, 705–719.
n Boggs, G. R. (2004) Community Colleges in a Perfect Storm. Change, 36(6), 6.
n Boggs & McPhail (2016). Practical leadership in community colleges: Navigating today’s challenges. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
n Burke, W. W. (2011). Organization change: Theory and practice (3d ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
n Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1998). Strategic organizational diagnosis and design (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.

www.changemag.org 61
 Resources (cont’d.)
n Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
n Cole, G.A. (2004). Management theory and practice. London, UK: Thomson Learning, 2004.
n Diefenbach, T. (2013) Hierarchy and organization: Toward a general theory of hierarchical social systems.
Florence, KY: Routledge Studies in Management, Organizations and Society. Taylor & Francis Group.
n Galbraith, J.R. Designing organizations: Strategy, structure, and process at the business unit and enterprise levels,
3rd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
n Goldratt, E., & Cox, J. (2002). The goal (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: North River Press.
n Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher
Education, 39, 67–91.
Hall, K. (2013). Making the matrix work: How matrix managers engage people and cut complexity. San Francisco,
CA: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
n Horney, N., & O’Shea, T. (2015). Focused, fast & flexible: Creating agility advantage in a VUCA world.
Oceanside, CA: Indie Books International.
n Hossler, D., Ziskin, M., & Gross, J. P. K. (2009). Getting serious about institutional performance in student reten-
tion: Research-based lessons on effective policies and practices. About Campus, 13(6), 2–11. Doi: 10.1002/abc.271.
n Kotter J.P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 96–103.
n McClenney, K., & McClenney, B. (Eds.). (2010). Reflections on leadership for student success. Austin, TX: The
University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program.
n McPhail, I. P. (2013, March 4). POV: Confronting the New American Dilemma: A National Imperative for the
Community College. Community College Week. Washington, DC.
n McPhail, I. P., Heacock, R., & Linck, H. F. (2001). Creating and Leading the Learning College. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 25, 17-28.
n MDRC. (2011) Turning the tide: Five years of achieving the dream. Oakland. MDRC. Retrieved from www.mdrc.
org/publication/turning-tide.
n Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
n O’Banion, T. (1997). A learning college for the 21st century. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/Oryx
Press Series on Higher Education.
n Ostroff, F. (1999). The horizontal organization. Oxford, UK: Publishers.
n Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin. M. A. (2006). Perceptions of organizational change: A stress and coping perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1154–1162
n Roueche, J. R., Roueche, S. D., & Milliron, M. D. (1996). Strangers in there own Land: Part Time Faculty in
American Community Colleges. Community College Review, 23, 33-48.
n Strebel, P. (2006 , October). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review on Leading Through
Change (Harvard Business Paperback Series–First Trade Edition), 45–62.
n Tagg, J. (2012). Why does the faculty resist change? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44, 6–15.

62 Change • July/August 2016