Transforming the Land Grant College of Agriculture
for the Twenty-first Century

A wide range of literature was reviewed as the first element of this study, including that which concerned public and private organizations in general, universities as a whole and specifically the college who roots are in agriculture. A survey of some 23 deans in person or by telephone was made to determine the present condition of the individual LGCAs and to verify if the circumstances, organizational problems and solutions of other public or private organizations pertain to the LGCA. Basically, this study examines how to make change in possibly one of the most intractable of all organizations -- the university; thus, the focus of this treatise.

Today's LGCAs are mature organizations in need of revitalization and renewal. Approaches to this include instilling in that organization a clientele and patron perspective by focusing on their needs, by increasing capacity to change and by altering strategy, structure and various modes of doing things. Changing the mindset of personnel throughout the organization is the most difficult task of all, but most essential if renewal is to occur. It is the faculty that decides what to teach and what research to do. Academic freedom, which is to find the truth and tell it, must be protected. On the other hand, this academic freedom also empowers the faculty with great influence. It is important that faculty stay in tune with current societal needs. They are the leaders of their own teaching and research programs and as such are quite independent, and they should be, because they are the powerhouse of society when new ideas are needed. Removing departmental barriers between faculties within the university organization would help redirect teaching and research to better serve the public good and address the multidisciplinary problems of clientele and patrons. Furthermore, this would be a powerful step forward to ensure the public interest and support that is essential for survival.

Implications

Effective leadership is essential to revitalize the mature and possibly declining organization, and a process is necessary to empower the potential leader who has enough insight to overcome constrained cultural assumptions to guide a change effort. The turnover of department chairs in LGCAs was 67% in three to four years, and of deans, 32% within three years and 73% within a seven-year period. It is no surprise that leadership with such truncated tenure is not as effective as it should be.

Characteristics and idiosyncrasies of research universities as a whole are also problems for LGCAs. Deans surveyed felt that departmental loyalty, while necessary, was a major impediment to making changes in program direction, especially as internal and external political efforts were conjoined. Tenure and longevity were considered necessary, yet still were impediments to change. The committee system and academic politics were also seen as serious roadblocks when considering changing academic programs. Shared governance and professional societies were not felt to be major obstacles.

Suggestions for revitalization

1. History, experience and institutional research are not only useful and necessary but also persuasive for those implementing academic and organizational decisions.

2. Knowledge of who benefits from the fruits of a mission-oriented academic program is critical, and the mission should be consonant with the interests of beneficiaries, patrons and stakeholders.

3. Utilizing a steering committee appointed and created to serve as a group for management and academic change is helpful, but the dean must personally chair this committee and develop and lead the process for revitalization. If the dean does not take the time or have the ability to do so, the process should not be initiated.

4. The steering committee must go through its own learning process and design the organizational learning process for the college, campus and stakeholders by widening its circle of constituents and addressing major issues. The committee must develop a process for communicating throughout the college and among present and future stakeholders.

5. The goal of revitalization is to define a desired mission that can be utilized in reorienting, reorganizing and developing new programs to meet that mission's goal.

6. At some point a new organizational structure will be needed to provide the framework to ensure that the new mission and direction taken will lead to and solidify research and teaching programs focused on the new mission's goals and the needs of the clientele and patrons in the region and state.

7. The timetable for change is a long one. Desired outcomes will take time to achieve, possibly five to six years for institutional learning and another five or six years to revitalize the college. This is why continuous leadership is essential if a revitalization process is to succeed.

Conclusion

Few colleges and universities have changed unless they felt threatened from outside the organization. There is no clear blueprint for changing the direction of academic units. The challenge is to see if this or an improved process can be accomplished.