This study examined decision-making processes during two university mergers, instances of major organizational change. Processes were evaluated in the context of traditional and modern academic decision-making models. A qualitative method of inquiry, designed as a multiple instrumental case study, entailed interviews with 6 participants at a pilot site, followed by 37 interviews and document analysis at two case study sites. Interview transcripts and documents were coded and analyzed, yielding a thematic evaluation.
Four major themes were found pertaining to the two mergers: avoidance of conflict, need for validation, momentum, and disconnect among views. The study found that more traditional models of decision-making were employed at one institution, while more modern models were used at the other. Both institutions exhibited administrative leadership utilizing tools to exert influence to effect the mergers. Conclusions included a highlight on American higher education institutions in transition from traditional to more modern approaches of decision-making, described as a “grey zone” between the models. Implications of the study included the necessity for modern higher education administrators to maintain a delicate balance between traditional and evolving modern approaches of higher education decision-making.