Business 21C - Published by UTS Business

When universities bought into the online learning revolution of the late 1990s, the critical analysis and decision-making rigour that ought to accompany big budget decisions with long-term implications did not feature as highly as may be expected. Dr Jonathan Pratt argues that a social phenomenon was at play that has implications for decision makers and critical analysis in any organisation.

By the late 1990s, Australian universities were jostling to embrace online educational technologies. The arguments were compelling: increased competitiveness in overseas markets, improved cost-efficiency, enhanced quality of education, not to mention access to an international market in web-based training that forecasts were saying would be worth over five and a half billion by 2002. There was a ‘be in it or be left behind’ attitude to technology and higher education.

Many universities went ahead, adopting complex and expensive learning management systems and support technologies. By March 2002, the first national survey to assess the extent of online learning at Australian universities found that there were 207 fully online courses, with no face-to-face component. These were offered by 23 out of 40 (58 percent) of responding universities. All universities were found to have integrated the internet to some degree into the teaching and learning process. These figures matched rates of adoption in Canada and the US during the same period.

Evidence now suggests that some of the decisions behind these significant purchases were made without appropriate decision-making processes, and without the kind of critical thinking and analysis that universities take pride in – and charge money for – teaching their students.

The consequences of this lack of critical evaluation and appropriate decision-making procedures has in some cases been associated with wasted investment in resources, unfulfilled expectations, and in some cases, organisational failure.

How could such a costly and visible breakdown in critical thinking have been possible? Since it occurred in a number of institutions, does it suggest the existence of social phenomenon that can be identified and measured? And if a phenomenon exists, could it have implications for decision making in different organisations or business contexts?

To explore these questions further, I conducted a research project designed to encourage some broad sociological explanations. The five-year investigation  included case studies, interviews, and analysis of relevant documents. It used a grounded theory methodological framework, validated by the insights of institutional theory. (The complete project can be found in a recently released book, Falling Behind: A Grounded Theory of Uncritical Decision Making, available on Amazon.com)

The findings were clear: a social process was indeed at work. The three Vice Chancellors of the three universities considered as part of the project felt pressure to mimic the decisions of other universities within their networks. The study also found that the interpersonal networks of the Vice Chancellors were an influential force, and a major conduit for this pressure. I called the process ‘falling behind’ and identified a complex interaction of a range of macro and micro contextual condition that facilitated it.

All three Vice Chancellors were subject to a fear of ‘falling behind’ at different points in time. Once the construction ‘falling behind’ was enacted within the interpersonal networks of Vice Chancellors, it led to ‘catching up’, sometimes with a significant sense of urgency. Various external and internal intermediary factors were found to shape university restructuring, evaluation and adoption decisions, leading to a range of organisational consequences.

The combination of fear of ‘falling behind’ and the subsequent ‘catch up’ behaviour led to a range of poor decisions with regard to the adoption of educational technologies in the universities studied. Had the decision-making been more discerning, universities are likely to have examined the core promises of the various technologies more thoroughly. Our research suggests that by exercising the core academic skill – a capacity for critical analysis – the decision on how and what educational technologies to implement would have improved, in most cases.

These findings highlight how important it is for senior management and central decision makers in any organisation to have experience and understanding that relate to their areas of management responsibility. For example, in the case of the universities, respondents noted that promotional mechanisms traditionally favour those with a background in research and not teaching.

Unless those responsible for managing the teaching enterprise have an appreciation of various educational frameworks, and a first-hand knowledge of how to apply them, they are disposed to make uninformed decisions (as alleged by field respondents), or simply to make decisions based on what they see their peers doing in other organisations – they will copy. This issue translates to any organisation that promotes people on the basis of a skill set that may not be relevant to a line management role, or to the responsibilities of senior management.

Another implication of this research is that organisations which lack the internal capacity to challenge and resist decisions emanating from the personal networks of senior decision makers may be at risk of adopting changes that are not in the interests of those affected by these changes, both within the organisation, and external stakeholders – such as customers or shareholders.

You can also leave a response, or trackback from your own site.