Preparing People for Change: A Missing Link in Higher Education Change Initiatives

Higher education institutions are operating in an era of sustained and accelerating change. Digital transformation, shifting student demographics, financial pressures, regulatory demands, evolving pedagogical models, and the rapid integration of artificial intelligence are no longer discrete initiatives; they represent a continuous state of transition (Brown et al., 2020; Christensen & Eyring, 2011). While institutions devote significant attention to the strategic and technical dimensions of change, research consistently shows that these efforts often fall short when insufficient attention is paid to the people expected to live with and enact change. As Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) observed more than two decades ago, “organizational change efforts often fail not because the change itself is flawed, but because of problems associated with the human side of change” (p. 299).

A substantial body of organizational psychology research demonstrates that individual responses to change are both predictable and consequential. When people encounter uncertainty, perceived loss, or diminished control, they often experience anxiety, disengagement, and resistance behaviors (Oreg et al., 2011; Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005). Importantly, resistance is not an aberration or a sign of unwillingness. Oreg, Vakola, and Armenakis (2011) note that resistance to change is “a natural and expected reaction, rooted in uncertainty, fear of loss, and perceived threats to identity or control” (p. 463). These reactions shape not only whether change is adopted, but how it is sustained over time.

William Bridges’ transition theory further clarifies why change initiatives so often stall despite strong technical design. Bridges (2009) famously distinguishes between change and transition, arguing that “it isn’t the changes that do you in, it’s the transitions” (p. 7). He emphasizes that “every transition begins with an ending, and endings are associated with loss” (p. 23). In higher education, where professional identity, autonomy, and long-standing practices are deeply embedded, these experiences of loss—whether acknowledged or not—can significantly influence faculty and staff engagement during change.

Higher education scholarship underscores that these dynamics are particularly acute in academic environments. Kezar (2014) argues that institutional change in higher education is “rarely linear or rational” and is instead “deeply embedded in culture, values, and professional identity” (p. 15). As a result, change efforts that overlook the human experience risk triggering skepticism, fatigue, or disengagement, even among individuals who support the institution’s mission and goals.

Despite this well-established evidence, many institutions continue to approach change readiness primarily as a communication or compliance challenge. Faculty and staff are informed about what is changing and trained on new systems or processes, yet they are rarely supported in developing the skills required to navigate change as an ongoing psychological and social experience. As Kezar and Holcombe (2017) caution, “providing information about change is not the same as preparing people to enact change” (p. 6). When preparation is limited to messaging and training alone, institutions may unintentionally undermine trust, morale, and long-term effectiveness.

Preparing people for change, therefore, is not a peripheral or “soft” concern; it is a core institutional capability. Research shows that individuals’ well-being and engagement during change are strongly influenced by the extent to which they feel supported and able to make sense of what is happening around them (Rafferty & Jimmieson, 2010). Addressing this missing link requires intentional, structured approaches that recognize faculty and staff not merely as recipients of change, but as active customers of the change experience.