Integral Strategy 127
clear priorities, a better balance in undergraduate and graduate enrollments, more
coordination at the central level, and an emphasis on quality rather than size.
The proposed changes received both criticism and support since they represented
a deep shift in the institution’s image of itself (Simsek and Louis 2000).
In analyzing these developments over time among faculty members, Simsek and
Louis (2000) found evidence for a shift in the paradigms, myths, and metaphors by
which the faculty made sense of their experience in the organization. The use of
concrete metaphorical language rather than conceptual abstractions often made
it easier for people to express their ideas about change. The university’s earlier
period had produced dominant images of large unwieldy animals like elephants,
or wildly growing vegetation. Images for the later period include that of the lion,
and metaphors that show a greater sense of being focused, directed, and smaller
in size.
Simsek and Louis see a shift in the basic paradigm for the organization itself
from “entrepreneurial populism” to “managed populism.” The older story of the
university being all things to all people was transformed into a model emphasizing
more central direction, smaller size, and an ability to make differentiated judg-
ments about program quality and funding. In terms of the traditional paradigm
of populism, the change was dramatic. Based on their study and their theoretical
assumptions, Simsek and Louis conclude that real organizational change requires
“leadership strategies that emphasize [the] interpretation of organizational values
and meaning.” Further, “Leaders must become effective story-tellers rather than
commander-in-chief” (1994, 562). The implications for strategic leadership are
clear. A vision cannot be imposed from the top but may emerge as a consequence
of a strategy process that explores competing paradigms, values, and myths that
make sense of the experience of members of the organization.
The University of Richmond
By the late 1960s, the financial future of the University of Richmond was in
doubt. This small, largely undergraduate private university with some 3,500 stu-
dents, founded by Virginia Baptists in 1830, had served long and well to provide
educational quality and opportunity for local and state residents. As the new
decade of the 1970s was dawning, however, competitive challenges were mount-
ing, especially as Virginia provided new funding for its prestigious public institu-
tions and opened the Virginia Commonwealth University on the University of
Richmond’s doorstep.
During this period the university had an endowment of $6 million, and faculty
salaries were at the fortieth percentile. Empty residence-hall rooms were being
used for faculty offices. The food services failed a health inspection, two dormito-
ries had to add fire escapes or close, and the campus heating system was on its last
legs. With only two hundred seats, the library did not meet accreditation standards,
and the science labs were equivalent to those of local high schools. President
George Modlin suggested to the trustees that only a miracle, or a merger into the
state system, could save the university from financial collapse (Heilman 2005).