2.2 Theoretical Framework
2.2.3 The Organisational Change Theory
Organisational change research in higher education context has been through different stages of development over the past three decades (Farquharson, Sinha and Clarke 2018, p.150). A decent amount of research has recently provided evidence for the need of organisational change theory in management and risk management research evolving in the higher education context (Allen 2003; Baker and Baldwin 2015; Farquharson, Sinha and Clarke 2018). Farquharson, Sinha and Clarke (2018, p. 151) argue that there is a strong inclination among academics in the UK and worldwide to reconsider traditional ways of approaching change in HEIs. Allen (2003) and Baker and Baldwin (2015) defended the need for HEIs to revolutionise their traditional higher education structures and processes, as well as their governance and management systems. This came as a natural result of the dramatic changes throughout higher education systems, not only in the UK, but worldwide. Such dramatic changes would apply to the UAE context in the same way they apply worldwide, and they would include the following: novel pedagogical approaches and technologies, developing and changing national and regional higher education policies and regulations, student re-conceptualisation as a consumer, emerging environmental and sustainability issues, and the pressing need to engage with both private and public businesses to meet upcoming
demands for the labour, skills and skill-based market, and finally the need to justify the market real-life value of an academic degree (Baker and Baldwin 2015).
In the same context, Van de Ven and Poole (1995, p. 512) defined the organizational change theory as a theory concerned with “a difference in form, quality, or state over time in an organizational entity”. Such general definition would not so much serve the purpose of this study and identify its relation to the highly particular term of ERM. Similarly, the researcher has found in the COSO and ISO 31,000 risk management frameworks a different, but still limited and lacking, understanding of how ERM implementation in an institution could well lead to a change in the organisational culture of a HEI. These two frameworks present change as a primary concern with ERM implementation. In this context, one justification for the use of Organisational Change theory in ERM is provided for in the COSO 2004 and 2017 ERM framework versions. According to COSO, organisations of all kinds choose to adopt change if they have to address the different levels of risks and if they opt to achieve their objectives. The COSO 2017 framework specifically includes elements of control activities such as assessments, verifications and authorisations which necessitate change. Still a more profound and academically relevant definition of organizational change is required to indicate how a change in culture helps improve the ERM implementation processes in a given academic environment, and vice versa.
Scott (2014) explained that the Organisational Change theory is best defined and understood as the overarching theory of management theories, including seven management change theories. The researcher utilised this discussion and adopted this definition of the theory in order to best represent the proposed preliminary Conceptual Framework of the study indicating how different elements of organisational change could lead to effective implementation of ERM in HEIs. The following figure, adapted from Deck (2015, p. 39), shows how these theories are interrelated and how they contribute to the main topic of this study of ERM implementation and effectiveness:
Figure 2.2 – Management Theories and How they contribute to the ERM Conceptual Framework of this Study
In educational research, organizational change can be defined as that tool which the stakeholders and decision-makers adopt to “examine how the type and stage of the change management process influences ERM implementation” (Deck 2015, p. 41). Additionally, in educational research, examples have been given of the use and importance of organisational change theory in HEIs context. For example, Deck (2015) explained how in the UK HEIs have gone through pressure from government agencies as well as the board of directors of universities to produce organisational change in their institutions. This in itself gives a justification for the adoption of organisational change as a theoretical component of any ERM implementation study.
In summary, the major reason the researcher is adopting this theory in the study is to justify and explain the study proposed preliminary Conceptual Framework (Figure 2.3), where effective organisational changes caused and necessitated by ERM implementation in HEIs are the same dominant elements prevalent by the corporate business organisations. The researcher argues that the only difference is the outcome desired by HEI stakeholders from that change. In simple terms, the Organisational Change and the Institutional theories both touch on effective change management. They were both used in this study to enable the researcher firstly to look into the conceptual framework from a more solid theoretical background, and secondly to understand how to implement a broad and general organisational initiative such as ERM in the academic environment. However, this claim by the researcher seems contrary to the views of Allen (2003) on organisational change which suggest that there are always calls to alienate HEIs from becoming more ‘business-like’ (Allen 2003). However, recent ERM research on HEIs has always
proven that HEIs can be as responsive to social and business-like changes requirements as business institutions themselves (Radnor and Osborne 2013).
One weakness of the organisational change theory research in HEIs is that it is still “underdeveloped”
and lacking (Farquharson, Sinha and Clarke 2018, p.150). Another weakness is that throughout educational research it has only focused on case studies of individual institutions (Bleiklie 2014). Such research has only investigated the ways HEIs are conceiving change on the basis of individual cases, and there is still a need to design a clear research framework convenient for the unique culture of higher education.