Performance Funding and Organizational Learning in Three States: Forms, Hindrances, and State Support

• In Event: Performance Funding and Organizational Learning in Higher Education

Abstract

Objectives
As performance funding (PF) has spread, many scholars and policymakers have concluded that its effectiveness depends on colleges’ capacity for effective organizational learning (OL): discovering areas of underperformance, determining and implementing solutions, and evaluating their effectiveness (Dowd & Tong, 2007; Kerrigan, 2010; Jenkins, 2011; Witham & Bensimon, 2012). This paper addresses the following research questions:
1. What OL practices do colleges use to improve on state PF indicators?
2. What factors hinder the effectiveness of those OL practices?
3. What assistance have states offered to colleges to assist their OL efforts?

Perspectives
This paper draws on three bodies of research. First is the literature on PF implementation in higher education, which illuminates how inadequate OL can be a major impediment to effective implementation (Burke, 2002, 2005). Second, research on OL in colleges alerts us to organizational structures, cultural features, behavioral practices, and psychological states that help or hinder OL (Dowd & Tong, 2007; Jenkins, 2011; Kerrigan, 2010; Kezar, 2005; Witham & Bensimon, 2012; see also Argyris & Schön, 1996; Huber, 1991; Lipshitz et al., 2002). Rounding this out are perspectives from policy implementation and organizational change theory (Honig, 2006; Kezar, 2012; Matland, 1995).

Methods and Data
We examine PF implementation in three states. Tennessee was the first state to develop PF for higher education (in 1979), with Ohio (1998) and Indiana (2007) being influential later adopters. Our data come primarily from interviews with state higher education officials and with administrators and faculty at 9 community colleges that differ in their student-body characteristics, financial resources, and data-analytic capacity.

Results
Our data show that virtually all our colleges do have some mechanism for reflecting and acting on their student outcomes. However, the degree of formalization and complexity of those OL mechanisms varies greatly across the colleges. The greatest formalization occurs when colleges are affiliated with an external initiative such as the AQIP program of the North Central Association or the QEP program of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools or the Achieving the Dream initiative of Lumina Foundation. Another, albeit less powerful, source of formalization is when the colleges adopt a strategic plan.
Despite these efforts, colleges report several structural, cultural, and behavioral conditions that hinder effective OL:
* Understaffed institutional research offices (all 3 states)
* Insufficient faculty professional development in data analysis (Indiana, Ohio)
* Organizational structures hindering college divisions from communicating effectively with each other (Tennessee)
* Top-down administrative structures and organizational cultures resistant to faculty voice and also to accountability (Indiana, Ohio)

We found minimal efforts in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee to build the capacity of their colleges to engage in effective OL. However, we did find some efforts in Ohio and Tennessee to convene conferences to discuss best practices. Hence, there is reason to believe that expanded state efforts are both possible and potentially productive.

Authors

• Kevin J. Dougherty, Teachers College, Columbia University

• Sosanya M. Jones, Southern Illinois University - Carbondale

• Hana Lahr, Teachers College, Columbia University

• Rebecca S. Natow, Teachers College, Columbia University

• Lara Pheatt, Teachers College, Columbia University

• Vikash Reddy, Teachers College, Columbia University