Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

ISSN: 1360-080X (Print) 1469-9508 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhe20

Exploring employee perceptions of Six Sigma as a

change management program in higher education

Monica Davis & Matthew Fifolt

To cite this article: Monica Davis & Matthew Fifolt (2017): Exploring employee perceptions of Six
Sigma as a change management program in higher education, Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management, DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2017.1377970

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1377970

Published online: 18 Sep 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjhe20

Download by: [Australian Catholic University] Date: 27 September 2017, At: 20:25
 JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1377970

ARTICLE

Exploring employee perceptions of Six Sigma as a change

management program in higher education
Monica Davisa and Matthew Fifoltb
a
Financial Affairs, College of Continuing Studies, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA;
b
Department of Health Care Organization and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at
Birmingham, 330N Ryals School of Public Health, Birmingham, AL, USA
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 20:25 27 September 2017

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Change initiatives in higher education are frequently guided by an Six Sigma; change
institutional change management program which provides management program;
employees with a framework and set of skills to better understand change initiatives; higher
problems and facilitate change at the organisational level. In this education; Lewin’s Three-
Phase Model of Change;
paper, we explore employee perceptions of Six Sigma as a tool for case study
facilitating change at one public institution of higher education in
the southeast United States. Unlike previous research studies that
focused on specific results of change initiatives using Six Sigma,
our research team considered how individuals, trained in the
implementation of Six Sigma techniques and strategies, viewed
the potential of the Six Sigma model to enact and sustain change
initiatives in a higher education setting. In this case study, we
describe Six Sigma as a change management program in higher
education based on Lewin’s Three-Phase Model of Change.

Introduction
‘Change is the only constant’ (Heraclitus, trans. 402a)

Historically, postsecondary education in the United States has demonstrated a remark-

able ability to adapt to the changing financial, political and societal needs of its citizens
(Angulo, 2016; Bok, 2013). Nevertheless, many American colleges and universities face
unprecedented challenges that may actually threaten their existence. In a 2012 report,
Bain & Company noted that one-third of colleges in the United States had unworkable
and unsustainable business models in which fixed costs far outstripped projected
revenues (Denneen & Dretler, 2012). Change in higher education, therefore, is not
only constant, but it may indeed be necessary for long-term institutional sustainability.
Change initiatives in higher education are frequently guided by an institutional
change management program (CMP) which provides employees with a framework
and set of skills to better understand problems and facilitate change at the organisa-
tional level. Proponents suggest that CMPs increase the potential for successful imple-
mentation of initiatives because they provide a series of steps that can be followed over
a period of time (Bridges & Bridges, 2000; Kotter, 1995). Opponents argue, however,

CONTACT Monica Davis mdavis@ccs.ua.edu Financial Affairs, College of Continuing Studies, The University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA
© 2017 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership and Management
 2 M. DAVIS AND M. FIFOLT

that CMPs only treat the symptoms of a problem without truly addressing fundamental
changes in employee behaviour (Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990).
The purpose of this investigation was to explore employee perceptions of one
specific, long-standing CMP initiative at a public institution of higher education in
the southeast United States. Specifically, we looked at employee perceptions of Six
Sigma (Pande, Neuman, & Cavanagh, 2000) as a tool for facilitating change in the
College of Continuing Studies at The University of Alabama. Unlike previous research
studies that focused on specific results of change initiatives using Six Sigma (Hargrove
& Burge, 2002; Kukreja, Ricks, & Meyer, 2009; Kumi & Morrow, 2006; Yu & Ueng,
2012), our research team considered how individuals, trained in the implementation of
Six Sigma techniques and strategies, viewed the potential of the Six Sigma model to
enact and sustain change initiatives in a higher education setting.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 20:25 27 September 2017

Background and literature

Change occurs when external or internal forces apply pressure to an organisation thereby
driving it to move from an existing state towards a different state from the original (Kotter
& Schlesinger, 2008). Organisational change efforts are complex and can be difficult to
initiate and maintain. Therefore, CMPs such as Six Sigma are frequently used to provide a
common language and sequential steps to guide the change process.
While scholars have found CMPs to be applicable in higher education (Balzer, 2010;
Bonser, 1992), others have suggested that CMPs must be deliberately designed to meet
specific needs in postsecondary education (Meister-Scheytt & Scheytt, 2005) or tailored
to be effectively applied to institutional environments (Kezar & Eckel, 1999; Sztajn,
1992). In the absence of change models in higher education, many institutions have
adopted business practices to guide improvement efforts, a habit that some researchers
have questioned due to qualitatively different measures of success in business and
postsecondary education in the United States (Ginsberg, 2011; Nakhai & Neves, 2009).
For example, Total Quality Management is a CMP that many institutions of higher
education adopted in the 1990s as a framework for quality improvement initiatives
(Koch, 2003). Established in the early twentieth century and popularised in the 1950s
and 1960s by quality gurus Deming, Juran, Ishikawa, Feigenbaum and Crosby
(Cameron & Green, 2015; Smith & Lewis, 1999), Total Quality Management strives
to increase the quality of organisational products by reducing defects through contin-
uous action of all employees (Lewis & Smith, 1999; Mizikaci, 2009).
Six Sigma is as an outgrowth of the Total Quality Management movement. Developed by
Motorola in the mid-1980s, Six Sigma uses empirical, statistical methods to achieve excep-
tionally high levels of performance, specifically 3.4 defects for every one million opportunities
or occurrences (Pande et al., 2000). The goal of Six Sigma is to implement measurement-
based strategies to reduce variation in products or services. In higher education, Six Sigma
represents a measure of quality that strives for near perfection (iSixSigma, 2017).
As a CMP, Six Sigma seeks to address two basic questions: (1) what information is
needed and (2) how can this information be used to facilitate improvements? (Pande
et al., 2000). To answer these questions, Six Sigma employs a variety of tools integrated
into a clear set of steps: Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve and Control (‘the Six Sigma
 JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT 3

process’). The Six Sigma process serves as the technical framework that allows indivi-
duals to facilitate change.

Six Sigma in higher education

Researchers report that leaders in higher education have been experimenting with Six
Sigma since 1990 (Lewis & Smith, 1999) and its derivative, Lean Six Sigma, since mid-
2000 (Comm & Mathaisel, 2003; Emiliani, 2004; Emiliani & Stec, 2005, 2005; Moore,
Nash, & Henderson, 2007; Tischler, 2006). Jenicke, Holmes and Pisani (2013), however,
concluded that it is rare to find empirical research on Six Sigma programs in higher
education. Even fewer studies address employee perceptions of Six Sigma or CMPs in
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 20:25 27 September 2017

the higher education setting. The extant literature on Six Sigma in higher education
includes nine studies focused on process improvement, four studies on curriculum
integration and three on theoretical frameworks.

Six Sigma at The University of Alabama

The Six Sigma program in the College of Continuing Studies at The University of
Alabama was established in 2006 as a strategy to help employees understand and
improve work processes. The program began with training for the leadership team
and was expanded to provide Six Sigma belt training for college staff (Higher Education
and Six Sigma: a Perfect Fit, 2017). The university offers two levels of Six Sigma
training, Green Belt and Black Belt programs, which occur over five and seven months,
respectively. In the lexicon of Six Sigma, belt colours denote the level of training an
individual has received and skills developed as well as his or her role in leading or
supporting an organisational improvement project.
The Six Sigma training program at the university is intended to equip individuals
with leadership and project management skills in order to guide complex process
improvement projects. Since its inception, the College of Continuing Studies has
trained 36 Green Belts and eight Black Belts and completed 57 projects with a cost
savings of approximately $8.5 million (Rockett, 2015; Six Sigma in Higher Education-
Professional Development and Training, 2015).

Theoretical framework
Scholars have developed a number of CMPs based on theories of change that divide
initiatives into steps or processes. Examples include Lewin’s Force Field Analysis,
Kotter’s Eight Steps to Successful Change and Cooperrider and Whitney’s Model of
Appreciative Inquiry. Each of these models employs unique features that prescribe
strategies for identifying and maintaining organisational improvement efforts. None,
however, has dominated the field of change management as much as Lewin’s Three-
Phase Model of Change.
This theory-based approach to change regards the change process as moving from
one fixed state to a new fixed state in an attempt to reach a status of equilibrium (Bess &
Dee, 2012). The three-phase model includes three specific stages: unfreezing, changing
 4 M. DAVIS AND M. FIFOLT

and refreezing. According to Myers, Hulks, and Wiggins (2012), these stages align well
with Six Sigma methodology.
The three-phase model of change and Six Sigma model share common elements such
as evaluation, change and control phases. Additionally, both are viewed as closed-ended
processes. In other words, Lewin’s theoretical construct and Six Sigma as a CMP have
finite beginning and ending points. Finally, both are envisioned as proactive rather than
reactive approaches to change management. For these reasons, we viewed Lewin’s
Three-Phase Model of Change as foundational to our understanding of Six Sigma as
a CMP in higher education.

Methodology
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 20:25 27 September 2017

For this investigation, our research team utilised a descriptive case study method to present
a comprehensive narrative of employee experiences with the Six Sigma program at the
university. We regarded the case study method to be an appropriate research design based
on its ability to capture rich data of a single phenomenon (Merriam, 1998; Savin-Baden &
Major, 2013). Furthermore, Merriam (1998) identified case study methodology as an
especially useful approach in exploring professional fields, such as education.

Data collection and analysis

We used a combination of strategies for data collection including document analysis,
individual interviews and focus groups. Documents included Six Sigma training mate-
rials and presentations as well as the College of Continuing Studies website. Key
informant interviews and focus groups were guided by a semi-structured interview
protocol. Individual interviews allowed participants to share information from their
own unique perspectives while focus groups facilitated conversations among individuals
about similarities and differences with the phenomenon (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013).
A total of 19 individuals participated in this investigation.
We analysed data using constant comparative and thematic analysis techniques as
articulated by Savin-Baden and Major (2013). Line-by-line coding allowed the research
team to extrapolate recurring words, actions, phenomena and thoughts from interview
transcripts (McKinney & Morris, 2010). We established trustworthiness of data through
peer review; member checking; triangulation of interviews, observations and docu-
ments; and the use of an audit trail (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
We received appropriate authorisation from The University of Alabama Institutional
Review Board to conduct this study.

Setting and participant selection

We conducted this in-depth case study at The University of Alabama, a postsecondary
doctoral degree granting educational institution in the United States. According to the
Carnegie Classification system, the university is considered a public institution classified
as a four-year or above institution with a student population of at least 28,699
(‘Carnegie Classifications’, 2015).
 JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT 5

Several criteria were used to select specific, information-rich participants for this study
to ensure an accurate representation of how employees perceived the Six Sigma program in
higher education in general and the university specifically. To be eligible for consideration,
participants had to have participated in the Six Sigma program at university and be
currently employed at the university in the College of Continuing Studies. Program
participation was defined as attending the training and leading or serving on a project team.
Study participants reported working in the College of Continuing Studies between 2
and 22 years, and individuals held positions that ranged from entry-level to managerial
across multiple divisions. We conducted key informant interviews with 11 employees, 4
males and 7 females. Six of these individuals completed Six Sigma training between
2006 and 2011 and five completed training between 2012 and 2016; all but one reported
earning Green Belt certification.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 20:25 27 September 2017

Additionally, we facilitated focus groups with eight employees, two males and six females.
Five of these individuals completed Six Sigma training between 2006 and 2011 and three
completed training between 2012 and 2016. Six of these participants reported earning Green
Belt certification. A summary of demographic characteristics can be seen in Table 1.

Findings
Several overall themes and sub-themes emerged from employee interviews regarding
their perceptions of Six Sigma as a CMP in higher education. The findings start with the
first major theme: advantages and disadvantages of using Six Sigma and are followed by
the second major theme: differential experiences of participants. For each theme, we
provide sub-themes and representative quotes to highlight findings.

Advantages and disadvantages of using Six Sigma

Consistent with the quote by Heraclitus, one study participant stated, ‘It’s like the saying
goes, the only thing that stays the same is change’. However, many study participants

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of study participants.

Participant Data collection method Gender Six Sigma training Green Belt earned
1 Key informant interview Female 2012–2016 Yes
2 Key informant interview Female 2006–2011 Yes
3 Key informant interview Female 2006–2011 Yes
4 Key informant interview Female 2006–2011 Yes
5 Key informant interview Female 2006–2011 Yes
6 Key informant interview Female 2012–2016 Yes
7 Key informant interview Female 2012–2016 No
8 Key informant interview Male 2006–2011 Yes
9 Key informant interview Male 2006–2011 Yes
10 Key informant interview Male 2012–2016 Yes
11 Key informant interview Male 2012–2016 Yes
12 Focus group Female 2006–2011 Yes
13 Focus group Female 2006–2011 Yes
14 Focus group Female 2012–2016 Yes
15 Focus group Female 2012–2016 No
16 Focus group Female 2006–2011 Yes
17 Focus group Female 2006–2011 Yes
18 Focus group Male 2012–2016 No
19 Focus group Male 2006–2011 Yes
 6 M. DAVIS AND M. FIFOLT

observed the paradoxical nature of higher education in which traditions and institutional
culture coexist with change mindsets and shifting societal needs. These disparate condi-
tions, they suggested, can lead to moments of both transformation and stasis.

Pace
The majority of participants indicated that changes tend to occur slowly in higher
education due to tradition, bureaucracy/red tape, regulated funding and rigid policies.
While some noted that incremental changes are made to manage day-to-day issues,
participants generally suggested that large-scale or far-reaching changes like those
typically associated with Six Sigma projects are complex and therefore take time to
plan and execute.
Members of one focus group noted that the pace of change frequently varies based
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 20:25 27 September 2017

on the size and scope of the project. One participant described the pace of change in
higher education as generally slow but faster in her unit because they had ‘embraced’
change and utilised the CMP framework to guide change projects.
Individuals also commented that the speed with which changes occur in higher
education does not always correspond to the pace of the CMP. This was especially true
when technology was involved. One participant observed, ‘Technology moved past the
answers we discovered. So, some of our projects were no longer relevant by the time we
finished’.

Degrees of difficulty
Participants overwhelmingly agreed that initiating change in higher education is
difficult due to multiple stakeholder groups, institutional silos, outcome control
and lack of buy-in among team members. Several noted that their co-workers
expressed resentment and/or resistance to change initiatives; these co-workers fre-
quently conveyed a belief that what had worked in the past would continue to work
in the future.
Participants also identified their own lack of authority to influence or fully imple-
ment change initiatives in their respective units. Despite receiving training in Six Sigma
methodology, including the abilities to identify and diagnose problems, develop and test
solutions and connect strategies to operational knowledge, participants acknowledged
that multifaceted problems in higher education often cross departmental lines.
Although Six Sigma provided them with knowledge and expertise, it did not necessarily
grant them access to individuals who were outside of their units and whose support was
needed to enact change initiatives.

Orientation
Several employees advocated for the use of Six Sigma in higher education because of the
model’s data-driven approach to decision-making. These individuals linked the Six
Sigma model to the research mission of higher education and speculated that faculty
members would be more likely to consider a change initiative if the suggested change
were supported by a rigorous methodology and rationale.
Others simply expressed appreciation for the systematic nature of the Six Sigma
process. Participants noted that Six Sigma provided guidance and structure to the
change process and compelled them to move beyond their own observations and
 JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT 7

assumptions. One individual stated: ‘It (Six Sigma) forced me to work a problem out
completely before making a decision whereas my past behaviour would be to jump to a
conclusion if it seemed like a good idea’.
A number of employees, however, described Six Sigma as a model that is better
designed for manufacturing than education due to its statistical underpinnings and
focus on standardisation, volume and readily available data. Participants who were
familiar with manufacturing noted that instances or opportunities for error can be more
accurately quantified and tracked in manufacturing than in education. For example, one
employee described her project in terms of occurrences or rates of error. She said, ‘I was
trying to do the same thing with 36 [occurrences] instead of 3,036 a day or an hour’,
illustrating the challenge of applying a statistical method to a problem in which the
numbers are too small to calculate statistical significance.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 20:25 27 September 2017

Another participant registered concern that he and his colleagues were asked to apply
Six Sigma strategies to a problem without developing a more complete understanding of
the context. He and others intimated that the rigid steps of Six Sigma were not always
relevant to the types of issues they were trying to address. Multiple participants also
expressed frustration and confusion that examples used in their Six Sigma training
materials were drawn solely from manufacturing contexts rather than higher education.

Interpersonal skills
Despite the challenges of applying Six Sigma concepts to problems in higher education,
there was consensus among employees that the interpersonal skills they learned through
Six Sigma, including communication and group facilitation techniques, were invaluable.
One employee described group facilitation as ‘the most applicable portion of the (Six
Sigma) process . . . something that we all use weekly’.
Similarly, employees commented on the value of learning better communication
skills. Individuals described the value of listening to others’ ideas without becoming
defensive and using effective communication skills to build trust and buy-in for change
initiatives. One employee observed that when people have a voice in the process, they
are more likely to accept it.

Differential experiences of participants

Employees who received training in Six Sigma during the first half of the program
(2006–2011) expressed greater satisfaction with their experience than those who parti-
cipated in the latter half of the program (2012–2016). Specifically, individuals noted that
direct support and involvement of leaders was more prevalent during the first five years
of the program and served as a motivating factor for them to complete Six Sigma
training and projects.
One employee described a high level of buy-in from division leaders in the early
years of the Six Sigma program because they (leaders) had gone through the program
themselves. She said, ‘It trickled down to all the team members’. Furthermore, these
participants acknowledged that in order for change to occur, there had to be strong
leadership as well as support and buy-in from key members of the organisation.
Conversely, individuals who participated in Six Sigma training towards the latter half
of the program suggested that leaders were not interested in the process. Supervisors no
 8 M. DAVIS AND M. FIFOLT

longer required employees to create a final presentation of their projects, which

signalled to these employees a lack of commitment to the program. Some employees
identified very little or no support from unit leaders, co-workers and/or Six Sigma team
members. One participant stated, ‘There wasn’t any coaching from my mentors, no help
with a team, at all’.

Training
Training is critical to the Six Sigma program; it serves as the foundation to prepare
employees to facilitate change by teaching technical and interpersonal skills. Training
options at the university included in-person and online formats, with training instruc-
tors providing one-on-one project coaching to participants via in-person, phone or
email consultations.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 20:25 27 September 2017

Individuals who participated in the in-person training sessions reported greater

satisfaction and more consistent experiences than those who completed online
training modules. Irrespective of training format, employees described Six Sigma
training as ‘intense’, ‘information overload’ and ‘time-consuming’. One participant
stated, ‘I found it difficult to really grasp the importance of all of it . . . there was a lot
involved’.
Another said that the experience made her ‘brain hurt’ due to the volume and
comprehensiveness of training and training materials. An employee with a technology
background described her frustration with the online training, ‘it has too many flaws . . .
(the) bugs (are) not worked out’. According to this employee, these technical issues
made it difficult to complete the online modules.

Incentives
Individuals who received Six Sigma training between 2006 and 2011 reported that their
supervisors invited them to participate in Six Sigma training. These employees por-
trayed the program and Green and Black Belt certification in a very positive light and
described participating in Six Sigma training as an honour. At the end of Six Sigma
training, participants were required to present their work to the leadership team. At the
conclusion of their presentations, they were presented a certificate by the dean. More
importantly, employees suggested that this experience brought them name recognition
among their supervisors and credibility for managing large-scale projects.
Individuals who received training between 2012 and 2016, however, described their
participation as a ‘forced obligation’. Additionally, they expressed frustration that their
involvement was not recognised or valued by others in their department. While Six
Sigma projects were assigned to a team, several employees described the challenge of
finding individuals who would help them implement the change initiative. According to
these study participants, co-workers likened working on Six Sigma projects to serving
on ‘another committee’. In fact, one employee overheard a co-worker say ‘thank
heavens it’s not me’ when the former was selected to receive Six Sigma training.
Many of these employees indicated that Six Sigma training had not been valuable to
their career advancement or standing within the division. They advocated for financial
compensation for completing the program and receiving Green or Black Belt status and
suggested that a pay incentive would encourage others to participate. One participant
said, ‘In the back of my mind (I thought) that I was going to get a pay raise’. The extra
 JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT 9

work did not bother this employee because she thought she was going to be ‘financially
rewarded’ for it. The lack of financial and reputational rewards, however, fostered even
greater resentment on behalf of these employees.

Discussion
University employees identified a number of benefits of using Six Sigma methodology
in higher education, but many reported inconsistencies with training and challenges in
applying Six Sigma principles to their work. Furthermore, employees expressed ambiva-
lence regarding the implementation of Six Sigma as the appropriate framework for
change. Consistent with previous studies, a majority of employees viewed Six Sigma as a
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 20:25 27 September 2017

better fit for manufacturing and advocated for training materials to be tailored to better
fit the needs of higher education (Balzer, 2010; Jenicke, Kumar, & Holmes, 2008;
Kukreja et al., 2009; Yu & Ueng, 2012).
Employees reported the technical aspects of Six Sigma to be demanding due to the
model’s reliance on statistical processes and a rigid set of steps (Freed, 1997; Kotter,
1995; Kukreja et al., 2009). Likewise, they noted that the pace of change in higher
education may belie the Six Sigma process and its reliance on the three-phase model of
change as articulated by Lewin. A more strategic approach to leading change may be
one that anticipates and prepares for volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity
to address the ever-changing landscape of higher education (Johansen, 2007; Kirby,
2016).
Nevertheless, participants perceived Six Sigma to be a valuable approach to leading
change initiatives. Notably, employees commented on the importance of communica-
tion and meeting facilitation skills to initiate conversations about change with co-
workers and to negotiate new improvement projects (Bridges, W., & Bridges S., 2000;
Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Kukreja et al., 2009; Murphy, 2009; Svennson,
Baessa, & Bakhsh, 2013).
Employees noted that Six Sigma training helped them look at problems more broadly
and make decisions based on data rather than assumptions and operational knowledge.
However, participants viewed in-person trainings as more effective and coherent than
trainings delivered online. This finding is consistent with Breyfogle (2008) who observed
that the benefits of an online (asynchronous) learning platform for developing Six Sigma
skills, such as lower costs and self-paced learning, do not outweigh the benefits of in-person
(synchronous) learning environments in which individuals develop peer-to-peer and peer-
to-instructor relationships and learn new skills in real time.
Breyfogle (2008) further suggested that a combination of in-person and online
trainings may be the most effective and efficient model of instruction for Six Sigma
projects. Since blended learning models were beyond the scope of the current investiga-
tion, we encourage future researchers to explore differences in delivery models as
related to CMPs in higher education.
Employee perceptions of Six Sigma as a CMP seemed to be heavily influenced by the
time period in which they received training as well as the levels of support they
perceived from supervisors and co-workers. Individuals who received training in the
early years of the program (2006–2011) described high levels of support and guidance
 10 M. DAVIS AND M. FIFOLT

from upper-level managers. This support was either lacking or insufficient for employ-
ees who participated in the latter years of the program (2012–2016).
Individuals also commented on their lack of authority to implement change initiatives
and navigate beyond their sphere of influence without explicit authorisation from their
supervisors. Given the nature of Six Sigma training to span organisational boundaries,
varying levels of support and guidance from managers to fully implement change initiatives
seemed shortsighted. As an organisational investment, this discrepancy may have been the
greatest missed opportunity for this division (Hallowell, 2017).

Limitations and implications

We acknowledge that the findings from this study were based on perceptions and
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 20:25 27 September 2017

experiences of a purposeful sample of employees in one functional unit of a large, four-

year institution of higher education in the United States. Therefore, findings from the
study are not generalisable beyond the context in which the research was conducted.
We further acknowledge that perceptions and experiences gathered from a different
combination of employees may have yielded different results.
Nevertheless, our research team observed a great deal of consistency among study
participants, especially when responses were grouped together by the dates in which
employees received Six Sigma training (2006–2011 and 2012–2016). We believe that
this study contributes to the body of knowledge on change management by offering
analysis of employee perceptions of Six Sigma as a CMP in higher education.
As demonstrated in both the research literature and popular media, colleges and
universities in the United States face extraordinary challenges in terms of competition
for students, reputation and funding; declining revenues; escalating budgets; and
increasing public scrutiny (Martin & Samels & Associates, 2017). To identify and
solve real-world problems associated with operational efficiency and system improve-
ment, higher education personnel must be equipped with the requisite knowledge and
skills to manage large-scale change initiatives.
Whether employee training sessions should be provided through a CMP, however,
remains to be seen. Findings from this study were equivocal regarding the use of Six
Sigma to initiate and sustain change initiatives in higher education. Employees reported
satisfaction with the interpersonal skills they learned yet also described frustration with
the highly structured and statistical methods associated with the Six Sigma model.
Furthermore, employees commented on the slow pace of the CMP in addressing issues
that frequently required speedier resolution.
Several employees found the data-driven approach of Six Sigma to be helpful in
identifying and defining an issue and developing a solution. These individuals noted
that they would continue to use many of the skills associated with Six Sigma. However,
rather than following a prescribed methodology, they indicated that they would selec-
tively use the steps that best served their needs. This suggests that the formal, industry
standard approach to Six Sigma may not be as important to employees as a flexible set
of tools to facilitate change.
Regardless of how colleges and universities plan for change, one finding stands above
all others: Irrespective of the change leader, the change initiative and the change
strategies used, improvement efforts must have the full and unwavering support of
 JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT 11

organisational leaders. Employee experiences by cohort (2006–2011 vs. 2012–2016)

could not have been more different from one another. How individuals viewed Six
Sigma training − both positively and negatively − was directly influenced by the level of
support they perceived from organisational leaders.
As demonstrated in this study, employees who received Six Sigma training between
2006 and 2011 found the experience to be both positive and affirming. These indivi-
duals expressed a clear understanding of the expectations and benefits of participating
and confirmed that their supervisors and co-workers were fully committed to their
projects.
Employees who participated between 2012 and 2016, on the other hand, described
Six Sigma training as a burden, something they had to do. These individuals noted a
lack of organisational commitment and lacklustre assistance from peers and co-work-
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 20:25 27 September 2017

ers. Moreover, they communicated an expectation of extrinsic financial incentives for

their participation based on the amount of extra work they had to complete for
certification. This stands in stark contrast to the intrinsic rewards discussed by mem-
bers who received training between 2006 and 2011.
The manufacturing orientation of Six Sigma may make it a difficult model to apply
to higher education. Nevertheless, study participants found many of the skills and steps
of Six Sigma to be valuable in leading change initiatives. We suggest that the decision to
implement Six Sigma, a customised training package or another CMP in higher educa-
tion is not an either/or proposition. Regardless of which approach is implemented,
leadership support for employees leading improvement efforts, and indeed most endea-
vours, is critically non-negotiable for higher education to adapt to the large-scale and
inexorable changes it now faces.

Epilogue
During the course of this study, the Six Sigma program in the College of Continuing Studies at
The University of Alabama was discontinued. This decision was made prior to and independent
from this investigation. Reasons cited by the university for program discontinuation included
poor project success and lack of employee interest.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Angulo, A.J. (2016). Diploma mills: How for-profit colleges stiffed students, taxpayers, and the
stiffed students, taxpayers, and the American dream. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Balzer, W.K. (2010). Lean higher education: Increasing the value and performance of university
processes. New York, NY: CRC Press.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don’t produce change.
Harvard Review, 68(6), 158–166.
Bess, J., & Dee, J. (2012). Understanding college and university organization: Dynamics of the
system (Vol. 2). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
 12 M. DAVIS AND M. FIFOLT

Bok, D. (2013). Higher education in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bonser, C.F. (1992). Total quality education? In Public administration review (pp. 504–512).
Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration.
Breyfogle, F.W., III. (2008). The inside track on Six Sigma training. Quality, 47(2), 46–52.
Bridges, W., & Bridges, S. (2000). Leading transition: A new model for change. Leader to Leader,
30–36. Retrieved from: http://www.ctrtraining.co.uk/documents/
WilliamBridgesTransitionandChangeModel_000.pdf
Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the
models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page
Publishers.
Carnegie Classifications. (2015). Institution profile. Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.
iu.edu
Comm, C.L., & Mathaisel, D.F. (2003). Less is more: A framework for a sustainable university.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(4), 314–323. doi:10.1108/
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 20:25 27 September 2017

14676370310497543
Creswell, J.W., & Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
Practice, 39(3), 124–130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Denneen, J., & Dretler, T. (2012). The financially sustainable university. Boston, MA: Bain &
Company.
Emiliani, M. (2004). Improving business school courses by applying lean principles and practices.
Quality Assurance in Education, 12(4), 175–187. doi:10.1108/09684880410561596
Emiliani, M., & Stec, D. (2005). Leaders lost in transformation. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 26(5), 370–387. doi:10.1108/01437730510607862
Freed, J. E. (1997). Leading continuous quality improvement on campus: This train is going north.
Albuquerque, NM: Association for the Study of Higher Education. .
Ginsberg, B. (2011). The fall of the faculty: The rise of the all-administrative university and why it
matters. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hallowell, D.L. (2017). Tree diagrams for Six Sigma: Plain and simple? Retrieved from https://
www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/affinity-diagram-kj-analysis/tree-diagrams-six-sigma-
plain-and-simple/
Hargrove, S., & Burge, L. (2002, December). Developing a Six Sigma methodology for improving
retention in engineering education. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education, 32nd Annual,
Boston, MA.
Higher Education and Six Sigma: A Perfect Fit. (2017). Retrieved from http://training.ua.edu/
sixsigma/sixsigma-highered.phpiSixSigma.
Jenicke, L., Holmes, M., & Pisani, M. (2013). Approaching the challenge of student retention
through the lens of quality control: A conceptual model of university business student
retention utilizing Six Sigma. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 15(2), 193–214.
Jenicke, L., Kumar, A., & Holmes, M. (2008). A framework for applying Six Sigma improvement
methodology in an academic environment. The TQM Journal, 20(5), 453–462. doi:10.1108/
17542730810898421
Johansen, B. (2007). Get there early: Sensing the future to complete in the present. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (1999, April). Balancing the core strategies of institutional transformation:
Toward a ‘mobile’ model of change. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canda.
Kirby, D.M. (2016, November 21). Changing the landscape of higher education [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-m-kirby/changing-the-landscapeof_b_
13127826.html
Koch, J.V. (2003). TQM: Why is its impact in higher education so small? The TQM Magazine, 15,
325–333. doi:10.1108/09544780310487721
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. (cover story). Harvard
Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.
 JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT 13

Kotter, J., & Schlesinger, L. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 86
(7/8), 130–139.
Kukreja, A., Ricks, J., & Meyer, J. (2009). Using Six Sigma for performance improvement in
business curriculum: A case study. Performance Improvement, 48(2), 9–25. doi:10.1002/pfi.
v48:2
Kumi, S., & Morrow, J. (2006). Improving self service the Six Sigma way at Newcastle University
Library. Program: Electronic Library and Information System, 40(2), 123–136. doi:10.1108/
00330330610669253
Lewis, R., & Smith, D. (1999). Total quality in higher education. Total quality series. Delray
Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Martin, J., & Samels, J.E.; Associates. (2017). Consolidating colleges and merging universities: New
strategies for higher education leaders. Baltimore, MD: Johns.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 20:25 27 September 2017

McKinney, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Examining an evolution: A case study of organizational
change accompanying the community college baccalaureate. Community College Review, 37
(3), 187–208. doi:10.1177/0091552109351185
Meister-Scheytt, C., & Scheytt, T. (2005). The complexity of change in universities. Higher
Education Quarterly, 59(1), 76–99. doi:10.1111/hequ.2005.59.issue-1
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and
expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mizikaci, F. (2009). Total quality management in higher education: An evaluation model for
practioners. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.
Moore, M., Nash, M., & Henderson, K. (2007). Becoming a Lean University™. In Best practices of
Southern Association of College and University Business Officers (SACUBO). Edmond, OK:
University of Central Oklahoma
Murphy, S. A. (2009). Leveraging lean six sigma to culture, nurture, and sustain assessment and
change in the academic library environment. College & Research Libraries, 70(3),215–226.
doi:10.5860/0700215
Myers, P., Hulks, S., & Wiggins, L. (2012). Organizational change: Perspectives on theory and
practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Nakhai, B., & Neves, J.S. (2009). The challenges of Six Sigma in improving service quality.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 26(7), 663–684. doi:10.1108/
02656710910975741
Pande, P., Neuman, R., & Cavanagh, R. (2000). The Six Sigma way. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Rockett, D. (2015). College of continuing studies crimson sigma briefing. Paper presented at the
CCS Quality Team Workshop, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C.H. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and
practice. Milton Park: Routledge.
Six Sigma in Higher Education – Professional Development and Training. (2015). Retrieved from
http://training.ua.edu/sixsigma/sixsigma-highered.php
Svensson, C., Baessa, M., & Bakhsh, M. (2013). Establishing a lean six sigma program in higher
education. First International Conference on LSS for Higher Education. June 24-25, 2013.
Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Sztajn, P. (1992). A matter of metaphors: Education as a handmade process. Educational
Leadership, 50(3), 35–37.
Tischler, L. (2006). Bringing lean to the office. Quality Progress, 39(7), 32–38.
What is Six Sigma? (2017). Retrieved from https://www.isixsigma.com/new-to-six-sigma/getting-
started/what-six-sigma/
Yu, K.-T., & Ueng, R.-G. (2012). Enhancing teaching effectiveness by using the Six-Sigma
DMAIC model. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(8), 949–961. doi:10.1080/
02602938.2011.592933