Strategic change in independent higher education colleges in England: moving from sub-bachelor (higher national qualifications) to bachelors’ degree programmes through institution partnership

Introduction
The strategy, as suggested by Mintzberg (1987) is a medium- or long-term plan to attain the organisation’s goals and mission. This plan forms the base of actions (Preedy, Glatter and Wise, 2003) which will lead to change, according to organisation’s directions, expected trends, and developments in the external and internal business environment. It is appropriate to discuss the strategic change in a college in similar ways as in any other business, considering that educational institutions are operated by a private or public entity, for-profit or non-profit (UNESCO, 2019). Therefore, this essay will focus on the strategic change adopted by higher education colleges in the endeavour of improving their position on the market by shifting from sub-bachelor to bachelors’ degrees programmes.
Working in independent higher education colleges in London I had the opportunity to be involved twice in various stages of planning and implementation of bachelor’s degrees programmes by university partnership. This change was initiated in both colleges to the detriment of sub-bachelor qualifications, traditionally delivered in those institutions. Liaising with professionals from similar institutions in England, I noticed that many colleges delivering sub-bachelor courses are shifting their strategy toward implementing bachelor’s degrees programmes. This is why the current paper aims to investigate the above-mentioned strategic change and will attempt to propose a reasonable plan which could facilitate the change.
Firstly, the literature on education leadership and strategic management will be explored for a better understanding of the complex nature of  planned organisational change in educational institutions (Mullins and Christy, 2016; Fullan, 2001; Mintzberg and Waters, 1985; Davies and Ellison, 2003). As the author faced ambiguous situations while participating in the implementation of BA programmes in institutions specialised in delivering sub-bachelor qualifications, the second part of the paper will focus on elaborating a suitable plan to ease the change process for leaders. Based mainly on the Lewin’s (1947), and Mintzberg’s (1987) work on strategy, as well as other authors, the proposed plan could be used as an informative guide by those leaders who are in the position to lead the change in their institution. In the conclusions, the essay will underline the applicability of the proposed plan, considering the complexity of the educational institutions.
Higher education context in England
As global education industry is estimated to become “ the great growth industry of the 21^st Century” (Pearson, 2013: 8), and the higher education markets are expanding through a diversity of services and products ranging from students’ recruitment to the creation of new learning technologies, the educational institutions become sellers, buyers and market actors (Komljenovic and Robertson, 2017) in a knowledge-based economy. In England, the legislative changes led to increased autonomy for colleges and universities in terms of decision making (Preedy, Glatter and Wise, 2003), and at the same time increasing the competitiveness through the publication of performance data and external benchmarks. In addition, the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness, and Employment (European Commission, Secretariat - General, 1993) emphasizes the importance of becoming globally competitive while addressing unemployment and developing human capital through lifelong learning. 
Although historically the sub-bachelor provision has been overshadowed by the bachelor provision (Parry, Saraswat, and Thompson, 2017), they have an increased role in enhancing lifelong learning and contributes to reducing the students’ drop-out rates (NCIHE, 1997). Besides, the sub-bachelor provision offered by public and private institutions is contributing to widening participation in higher education and moreover, they are ways of developing community engagement and attracting a larger number of students (Stuart, 2003). The focus of the higher education institution on the number of students is fuelled by the neoliberal discourse in education and the corporate interest. This context creates an image of the student as a consumer and transforms the education in a capital good and a tool that enables access to the marketplace (Bogotch, Schoorman and Reyes-Guerra, 2017). Therefore, as a result, higher education institutions are planning and adopting strategic changes that would potentially attract a higher number of students and will enhance their position on the market.
Understanding the strategic organisational change in higher education colleges
The strategy is a complex and dynamic concept whose relevance might change rapidly due to environment changes. Mintzberg (1987) advocates five ways in which the strategy could be defined: as plan (intended course of action), ploy (actions meant to bring you an advantage against the competitors), pattern (consistent behaviour, actions resulted from past successful approaches), position (position on the market), and perspective (based on the organisation’s own culture, and specific characteristics, shared by the staff). Later, Davies and Ellison (2003) represent the strategy as a template for organisational activities, targeting medium to long-term objectives, dealing with the key issues and using broad aggregated data.
Whatever definition is embraced, the strategic leader should consider the importance of understanding the factors influencing the strategy development, such as the turbulence of external elements and the understanding of change on an individual and organisational level. Considering these factors, Davies and Davies (2009) suggest the ABCD (Articulate, Build, Create, Define) model for leading organisational strategic change, where the leader is articulating the sense of direction is creating awareness among staff by building an image of intended direction and foster the dialogue as a base for establishing a strategic perspective and formal plans. The ABCD approach distinguishes the role of the strategic leaders in direction setting, translating the strategy into action, developing strategic capabilities and leading people toward a shared vision. Thus, the strategic change is driven by a transformational leader that inspires people to transcend the self-interest for the organisation, facilitating understanding of change, and their significance in the organisation (Bush, 2011).  The importance of aligning the people and the organisation to the strategy is underlined by Mullins and Christy (2016) who recognises the complexity generated by social interactions and the individuals that can make the difference (the change agent) or could be an element of resistance to change. Therefore, managing people closely and communicating effectively are tactics for overcoming the resistance to change. On the same topic, Fullan (2001) suggests that the staffs’ understanding of the purpose of change and its translation into necessary and desired behaviours are essential in achieving change and should be addressed on a continuous basis because they are affecting how people think and perform.
Often, the strategy is adopted as a reaction to external factors and moulded in various shapes, to meet the organisational needs. Authors (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985; Davies, 2003; McGee, Thomas and Wilson, 2005; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel, 2009;) identify more types of strategies: deliberate, emergent, intended, realised, and unrealised. For this paper, in the case of the College moving from sub-bachelor to bachelors’ degrees programmes through an institutional partnership, the deliberate strategy will be considered. Opposite to the emergent strategies which are flexible solutions to unexpected situations, the deliberate strategies are defined by previous intentions, a top-down approach that outlines the institutional goals and rigorous planning.
Even though the deliberate strategy is considered, all the other strategy definitions are complementary, and different relationships may exist between them, as suggested by Mintzberg (1987). The educational organisations are open systems in which the diversity and complexity of the processes should be respected (Bates, 2013), and it is expected that the strategic changes occurring are ‘multidimensional’ as stated by Fullan (2001: 39). Therefore, according to Fullan (2001), while implementing a change to achieve a particular goal, the dimensions that need to be considered are the resources, new teaching approaches and the alteration of beliefs related for example to new policies, pedagogies, processes. Hence, it may not be argued that the change took place in practice if all the above-mentioned dimensions are not changed. In the context of a College changing its provision from sub-bachelor to bachelors’ degrees programmes, the three dimensions of change will refer to a wide range of components. Therefore, after setting up the new goals and vision, the strategic leader will need to assume the resource developer and distributor role (Chang, 2002). In the case of the College changing its provision to bachelors’ degree programme, the resources linked to the new curriculum are essential. Therefore, the virtual learning environment (VLE) and the library should be review and updated. Specialised software or equipment should be available when the course starts, to avoid stakeholders’ dissatisfaction. Stuart (2003) emphasizes that the institutions should be on equal grounds in terms of status and authority within the partnership and should benefit from appropriate resources. However, using new resources might be insufficient to implement the desired strategy. To further the strategic change, middle leaders should refer to one of the five leadership forces identified by Sergiovanni (1984), educational leadership, to facilitate effective practices and lead staff development. For instance, the bachelors’ degrees programmes, are more academic than vocational, hence the lecturer should adopt teaching methods recommended and to enhance academic skills and independent learning.
Other operational departments involved in the change process may require adaptation of processes and resources.  In this case, the flexibility of the institution in terms of processes and structure can be a driving force for change or a factor of resistance (Mullins and Christy, 2016). While planning and implementing the change of the provision through institution partnership, the policies related to admission, student contract, complains procedures and quality procedures may need to be revised. Moreover, a gradual move toward a new provision may lead to an increased workload. An assessment of administrative resources (staff available, office space, equipment) and training should be planned at an early stage of strategic change.  This is available for student recruitment department as well. Starting to recruit for a different type of programme raises the urge for understanding the differences between the two provisions in terms of entry requirements and customers’ needs and expectations.
Proceeding to a planned organisational change, Lewin’s (1947) model of organisational change can be considered. This three stages model (unfreeze – movement/change – refreeze) is based on force field analysis, action research, and group dynamics. As per Lewin (1947), understanding the sources of resistance on individual and group level is important while implementing organisational change, and is also important in recognising the difficulties associated with the strategic change. As stated by Rosenbaum, More and Steane (2018), the resistance to change is not necessarily a negative element leading to failure, but it is an element that requires intervention and can be addressed by persuasion and efficient communication (Garvin and Roberto, 2005) with all staff members. Through cultural leadership (Chang, 2002) the strategic leader can build up new behaviours and can transform the strategy into a continual process owned by everyone. Consequently, the commitment of middle leaders and their project ownership are important (Stuart, 2003) in successfully developing the strategic change because they need to translate the strategy into operations (Kaplan and Norton, 2001; Pietersen, 2002) and to enhance staff engagement through human leadership.
As stated by Stuart (2003) a partnership decided and initiated by the strategic leader may fail if the implications for staff and students are not addressed in the change process. The importance of engaging various stakeholders in the partnership process is underlined by Hall (1999) who identifies the interpersonal and the intra-institutional level of a partnership, referring to the employees’ preferences towards partnership and the management of internal stakeholders. Hence, stakeholder analysis is an important tool for capturing strategic data prior to the change (Davies and Ellison, 2003). According to Lewin’s model of organisational change, in the beginning, within the unfreeze stage the employees should be informed about the current status-quo of the business, its strategic goals and desired change. Increasing employee’s awareness of change is more likely that they will react positively to it. A shared vision and ownership of planning lead more likely to effective strategy implementation (Preedy, Glatter and Wise, 2003). This can be achieved within the unfreeze stage through staff meetings for communicating the planned organisational change, and discussions with external stakeholders (Lewin, 1947). Later, staff development in various areas should continue through the movement/change stage (Lewin, 1947). For instance, the academic and support staff should prepare to support the new students by exchanging experience with fellows from the partner institution. Assessment standardisation workshops between academics in both institutions are required, and in a similar way, the administrative teams should benefit from common training days, to understand the processes on both ends and to improve coordination and efficiency. Moreover, common training and development opportunities will create an emotional connection, social relationships (Komljenovic, 2019), will build up the trust between the organisations (Currall and Inkpen, 2006) and the interpersonal level of the partnership (Hall, 1999).
One of the forces of change, as seen by Mullins and Christy (2016), is communication. The internal and external communication should be tailored based on the audience, from the first phase of discussion until the end of implementing the change. Clear and efficient communication is essential to build up a relationship between the two partner institutions and to endorse organisational integrity and competence (Komljenovic, 2019). The idea of clear communication as a vital element to partnerships is agreed by Stuart (2003) who emphasizes that discussing each other’s expectations and how the partnership is understood, will prevent misunderstandings and will build up trust.
Frequently, the main drivers of a strategic partnership between higher education institutions are the financial aspect, the position on the market, and the reputation. The regular publication of performance data for each institution, and the competitive environment (Preedy, Glatter, Wise, 2003) are leading the organisations to balance well any proposed partnership. While opting for a partnership, the leader that initiates it should consider organisation’s aim, vision and values, position on the market, reputation, and should be aware that they may need to be altered in the change process. Prior to the partnership agreement, the two institutions may collect and interpret data to build up a strategic overview of the possible collaboration using analytical tools such as stakeholder analysis, BCG Matrix (to identify strategic position and possibilities), SWOT (to identify internal favourable and less favourable factors), PESTEL (to assess the external environment) (Davies and Ellison, 2003). These analytical tools and others can be used to obtain strategic data that will enable the leader to identify if appropriate structures are in place for the partnership to function if the communication and administrative systems can face the change, if the market demand justifies the change of curriculum, and if the internal and external factors are favourable.
All the above testify that the strategic change from sub-bachelor to bachelors’ degree programme is a complex process that needs to be carefully planned as a deliberate strategy. The complexity arises from various elements involved in strategic change: resources, people, behaviours, believes and attitudes. Thus, for the change to occur, the transformational leader should consider all leadership dimensions: human, structural, political, cultural and educational leadership.

Strategic plan for moving from sub-bachelor to bachelors’ degrees programme through institution partnership.
The strategic change adopted by HE institutions is a way of adapting to market forces. Consequently, a college delivering vocational qualifications (level 1-3) could choose the apprenticeship degrees path for future strategic development, while colleges offering sub-bachelor’s degrees are more likely to move to bachelor’s degree provision through a partnership with a university. This can be achieved through strategic planning, that offers the means to transform ideas into actions in a proactive way (Predy, Glatter and Wise, 2003). Considering the Lewin’s and Mintzberg’s work on strategic planning, below it is proposed a plan that could be used by colleges that are trying to react to market forces through an institutional partnership and through adding or changing their provision from sub-bachelor to bachelors’ degree programme.
Moving forward, and considering the leadership and management theories (Bush, 2011), the proposed plan suggests at the beginning (stage 0 – 4) a bureaucratic model that will ideally transform to a collegiality model from stage five onward. This change in leadership will empower the stakeholders based on their expertise, unifying them through a common set of values and effectively engaging them in the decision-making process. The collegiality model may tackle a possible gap between the leadership and curriculum which could have a negative effect on students’ experience and institution’s achievement rates. 
Hypothetical plan for a college moving from sub-bachelor to bachelor’s degree provision:

Stage	Main process / activity	Duration
0	This stage is similar to Lewin’s (1947) unfreeze stage, and links to identifying the issue and the need for change. The strategic change decision can be taken after analysing the environment, the historical data, and concluding with a necessity to change based on external and internal forces (Mullins and Christy, 2016). Now, it can be said that the strategy is a plan, and a ploy at the same time (Mintzberg, 1987) because it is used to obtain an advantage against the competitors and to gain market share.  Alternatively, this strategic change of adopting the bachelor’s degree provision might have existed as a long-term objective, a strategy as a position within the educational environment. Tools that could be used: SWOT, PESTEL, BCG Matrix. Key considerations: College’s aims, vision, goals; cultural leadership.	0 to 3 months
1	Stage 1 transforms the strategy into perspective (Mintzberg, 1987) and movement (Lewin, 1947). The leader, together with the team, will prepare the future partnership by obtaining and analysing the data (identify potential partners, market potential), identifying elements of change, making an internal audit, a feasibility report, and starting to build up capabilities. A close consideration would be given in this stage to organisational culture. Identifying potential partners, the strategic leader should consider similarities between institutions from a cultural perspective, ethos, as well as matching visions and aims. Tools that could be used: SWOT, stakeholder analysis, power-interest grid. Key considerations: elements of change, elements of resistance, resources; structural leadership.	3 months
2	This stage, the action planning (Lewin, 1947), consists of meetings with possible partner institutions, finalised with a partnership contract. Pratt, Gordon and Plamping (2005) emphasize that an important element of a successful partnership is the clarity of boundaries between the two partner institutions because it leads to clear accountability, and all these can be established within the contract.  Considering Mintzberg’s theory, starting with this stage the strategy can be identified with a pattern, characterised by the consistency of actions and desired outcomes. This stage might extend to one more than one year, in cases when the partnership related discussions are not finalised positively due to unfavourable financial diligence or reports. This situation cannot be overcome by negotiating with more possible partner institutions simultaneous due to ethical considerations. Key consideration: business ethics, internal and external communication, political leadership.	< / >1 year
3	The action planning continues, and after the partnership contract is agreed (stage 2), it is followed up by staff training for the new provision, new marketing, and student recruitment. The partners reinforce the position on the market through the implemented strategy (strategy as position, Mintzberg, 1987) Key considerations: educational leadership, structural leadership, human leadership, marketing mix.	6 months
4	Now is the implementation of the new higher education provisions (Lewin, 1947). The BA qualification can be implemented gradually, first as a top-up year for the College’s alumni and graduating students, and then extended year by year. * the duration of this stage may be influenced by conditions imposed by University. Key considerations: human leadership, educational leadership.	2-3 years
5	Follow up and stabilisation stage (Lewin, 1947). During the academic year, the University monitors the delivery of the programme through staff meetings and students' feedback. Key considerations: educational leadership, SWOT.	Termly
6	The assessment of consequences (Lewin, 1947) At the end of each year, the programme will be evaluated internally, and externally, through self-evaluation and external evaluation process. For quality evaluation purpose, feedback from various stakeholders (students, staff, external examiner), retention, progression and achievement rates will be considered. Key considerations: reflection, self-evaluation, quality cycle, SWOT.	2 months
7	Following the evaluation, an action plan will be issued, which will help to improve the practice and processes. This stage identifies itself with the strategy as a pattern (Mintzberg, 1987), where good practice is noted, and actions are proposed to enhance the good practice and to extend it in other areas as well. This refreezing stage as defined by Lewin (1947), should be used to reinforce, monitor and strengthen the change that just took place. This stage helps the organisation and its staff to reflect on the new behaviours, to find ways of consolidating the trust and confidence between the institutions. Key considerations: educational leadership, quality cycle.	Evaluation report to be released within 4 weeks, and to contain deadlines for actions.

Often, this type of strategic change is faced by the college leaders for the first time. The above-proposed plan could help in avoiding managing this type of change through a chaos approach or an emergent strategy that will increase the ambiguity on all the organisational levels. The strategic leader could use this proposed plan to prepare him/her-self for the change he/she needs to lead and manage. The plan will make the strategic leader aware that such a change is not a short-term solution, but a process that needs to be developed as a long-term strategy, considering the complexity of the educational institutions and the dimensions involved in the change.
The strategic leader has to play a multitude of roles: goal developer, resources developer, process engineer, social and environmental leader, supervisor and organisational developer (Chang, 2002) and the theoretical knowledge will help him/her to focus and accomplish this task. The literature on strategic planning and change is wide and often tackles isolated aspects and levels of leadership and management. That is why the plan proposed above considers various aspects of a strategy and the relationships created between them (see figure 1).
                                       

Figure 1: Relationships between strategy as plan, ploy, position, perspective and pattern, based on Mintzberg (1987). By Author.
Conclusions
Reflecting on the above, the strategic change in the case of an independent higher education college moving from sub-bachelor to bachelors’ degrees programmes through institution partnership is a deliberate strategy with bureaucratic features. Establishing a partnership between institutions is a planned bureaucratic process, where the decision-making follows a rational sequence (Bush and Bell, 2002; Lewin, 1947), starting with the perception of the issue, analysing it with the use of collected data, formulating, choosing and implementing the solutions or approaches, and in the end monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the strategic change.  The bureaucratic approach for managing the strategic change is endorsed by more authors (Lewin, 1947; Levačić, 1995; Watson and Crossley, 2001; Bush and Bell, 2002) and all the leadership dimensions are considered essential. For a successful change the strategic leader should avoid ambiguous processes by embedding the management and leadership theories into practice. The theoretical awareness leads to a better understanding of organisations, people and behaviours, and helps leaders to take the organisation forward.

References:
Bates, A. (2013) Transcending systems thinking in education reform: implications for policy-makers and school leaders, Journal of Education Policy, 28(1). pp. 38-54.
Bogotch, I., Schoorman, D. and Reyes-Guerra, D. (2017). Educational curriculum leadership as currere and praxis, Leadership and Policies in Schools, 16(2), pp.303-327.
Bush, T. and Bell, L. (eds.) (2002) The Principles and Practice of Educational Management. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Bush, T. (2011) Theories of Educational Leadership and Management. 4^th edn. London: SAGE Publications.
Chang, Y.C. (2002) Leadership and strategy, in Bush, T. and Bell, L. (eds.) The Principles and Practice of Education Management. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. pp.51-69.
Currall, S. C. and Inkpen, A. C. (2006) On the complexity of organisational trust: a multi-level co-evolutionary perspective and guidelines for future research, in Bachmann, R. and Zaheer, A. (eds.) Handbook of Trust Research. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar. pp. 235-246.
Garvin, D. A. and Roberto, M. A. (2005) Change through persuasion, Harvard Business Review, 83, pp. 26-33.
Davies, B. (2003) Rethinking strategy and strategic leadership on schools, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 31(3), pp.296.
Davies, B. and Davies, B.J. (2009) Strategic leadership, in Davies, B. (ed) The Essentials of School Leadership. 2^nd edn. London: SAGE.
Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (2003) The New Strategic Direction and Development of the School. Key Frameworks for School Improvement Planning. London: RoutledgeFalmer
European Commission, Secretariat - General (1993) Publication. Commission White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness, and Employment. Available at: https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1997/10/13/b0633a76-4cd7-497f-9da1-4db3dbbb56e8/publishable_en.pdf (Accessed: 26 November 2018).
Fullan, M. (2001) The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Hall, V. (1999) Partnerships, alliances and competition: defining the field, in Lumby, J. and Foskett, N. (eds.), Managing External Relations in Schools and Colleges. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001) The Strategy-Focused Organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
Komljenovic, J. (2019) Making higher education markets: trust-building strategies of private companies to enter the public sector, Higher Education, 78, pp.51-66.
Komljenovic, J., and Robertson, S.L. (2017) Making global education markets and trade, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(3), pp. 289-295.
Levačić, R. (1995) Local Management of School: Analysis and Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lewin, K. (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change, Human Relations, 1(1), pp. 5-41.
McGee, J., Thomas, H. and Wilson, D. (2005) Strategy: Analysis and Practice. Text and Cases. Europe, Middle East & Africa: McGraw-Hill Education.
Mintzberg, H. (1987). The Strategy Concept I: Five Ps for Strategy. California Management Review. 30(1), pp.11.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (2009) Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Management. 2^nd Edn. London: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J.A. (1985) Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent. Strategic Management Journal. 6(3), pp. 257 – 272.
Mullins, L. J. and Christy, G. (2016) Management and Organisational Behaviour. 11^th edn. Harlow: Pearson.
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education [NCIHE] (1997) Higher education in the learning society. Main report. London: NCIHE. Available at: www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/dearing1997/dearing1997.html (Accessed: 18 November 2019).
Parry, G., Saraswat, A. and Thompson, A (2017), Sub-Bachelor Higher Education in the United Kingdom. Quality Assurance Agency.
Pearson (2013) Annual Report and Accounts 2012. Available at: https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/corporate/global/pearson-dot-com-v2/files/cosec/2013/15939_PearsonAR12.pdf (Accessed: 02 December 2019).
Pietersen, W. (2002) Reinventing Strategy: Using Strategic Learning to Create and Sustain Breakthrough Performance. New York: John Wiley.
Pratt, J., Gordon, P. and Plamping, D. (2005) Working Whole Systems: Putting Theory into Practice in Organisations. 2^nd ed. Oxford: Radcliffe.
Preedy, M., Glatter, R. and Wise, C. (2003) Strategic Leadership and Educational Improvement. London: The Open University and Paul Chapman Publishing.
Rosenbaum, D., More, E. and Steane, P. (2018) Planned organisational change management. Forward to the past? An exploratory literature review, Journal of Organisational Change Management, 31 (2), pp. 286-303.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1984) Leadership and excellence in schooling. Educational Leadership. 41 (5), pp. 4-13.
Stuart, M (2003) Collaborating for Change? Managing Widening Participation in Further and Higher Education. Leicester: NIACE.
UNESCO (2019) Glossary. Available at: www.uis.unesco.org/en/glossary-term/instructional-educational-institution (Accessed: 02 December 2019).
Watson, G. and Crossley, M. (2001) Beyond the rational: the strategic management process, cultural change and post-incorporation further education. Educational Management and Administration, 29 (1), pp. 113-125.