In HR, the design of an organization’s structure is intended to address its function and to help the organization meet its objectives (Amburgey & Dacin, 1994; Langton et al., 2010; Walker & Lorsch, 1968). An organization’s size and environment further affect its organizational structure (e.g., Bluedorn, 1993; Pennings, 1992).

In ever-changing contexts, organizations need agile yet manageable structures. The key is to find the right balance along two main intersecting continua: reporting design (flat versus hierarchy) and role design (functional versus cross-functional) (Langton et al., 2010).

Reporting design (flat versus hierarchy) considers both the agility and feasibility of manager-to-staff reporting ratios. Flat-reporting structures, in which all staff report to one manager, offer agility but become less feasible as the number of staff members increases. Conversely, hierarchical-reporting structures, with multiple layers of management, offer feasible leader-to-staff ratios. However, having layers results in departmentalization and can hinder the ability of reporting lines and job functions to respond with agility to changing priorities.

Role design (functional versus cross-functional) considers the specificity of roles and ranges from a focus on functional roles (staff focus on one or two educational development topic areas each) to a focus on cross-functional roles (staff work in multiple roles, perhaps for a specific academic unit) (Langton et al., 2010). A functional role design structure allows for considerable role clarity, giving staff a sense of “dividing and conquering” the work, and reduces the need to integrate and collaborate, though it can lack agility (Langton et al., 2010). Conversely, cross-functionality in roles allows for organizational agility as staff contribute to multiple initiatives but can lead to lower role clarity and greater scope creep for individual staff. This cross-functional structure may also necessitate shifts in how staff define a role, including reducing ownership over specific areas. Over time, cross-functionality may result in excessive redundancy in roles, which can increase pressure to coordinate and even integrate roles.

Each CTL director should determine an appropriate structure within these two continua—flat versus hierarchy and functional versus cross-functional—with the ideal balance varying according to each CTL’s context (see Figure 1). In practice, the extremes of these continua result in staffing inefficiencies or a lack of resiliency. A functional + hierarchical structure can create factions that limit responsiveness to changing priorities. Similarly, a functional + flat structure risks creating silos that may compete or leave the CTL vulnerable when a staff member departs with their specialized knowledge and skills. Conversely, a cross-functional + flat structure is highly agile but may be chaotic and lack enough role clarity, particularly as a CTL grows. Finally, a hierarchical + cross-functional structure can result in very unfocused and uneven work distribution with unclear reporting and workloads.

Ultimately, an ideal structure may require a degree of hierarchy to make the CTL manageable while also leveraging the agility of at least some cross-functional roles. In the HR literature, the modified matrix structure provides a solution (see Figure 1, top right quadrant, close to center). It challenges the common single manager organizational structure and offers an optimal balance that enables both clarity and agility.

The original matrix structure was developed in response to organizational growth in the 1950s and was characterized by assigning a pool of shared staff to multiple projects in a flat structure (as cited in Quinn et al., 1996). These staff reported to multiple managers, which posed significant challenges in role clarity and priority-setting. Quinn et al. (1996) developed the modified matrix structure to provide greater role clarity, stability, and guidance for prioritizing projects while enabling some agility. In the modified matrix structure, each staff member has one manager who serves as their workload advocate and mentor. However, staff may cross-report to other managers or team leads for specific projects or tasks.

On an organizational chart, the relationship to the main manager, who oversees performance and addresses any workload challenges, is shown as a solid line. Cross-functional reports are shown by dotted lines.

Sample modified matrix structures within a CTL appear in Figures 2a and 2b. In the larger CTL example (Figure 2a), one learning management system (LMS) team member has a cross-functional connection (dotted line) to the lead for e-portfolios, which reflects leveraging their educational technologies expertise (Quinn et al., 1996). However, this staff member still has both role and reporting clarity, with the LMS/blended learning lead as their main manager for performance and any workload challenges (solid line). CTL leaders may also want to formalize partnerships that exist between individual CTL staff and those in other units at the institution by including them as formal connections in their organizational chart.

The percentage of staff who cross-report to multiple people varies by CTL context, as does the amount of time they spend working in cross-functional areas. Pros and cons of this structure, to be considered before adoption, are noted in Table 1.

CTL leaders may need to change their organization’s structure to enhance their center’s agility. Such changes often require close coordination with HR partners to ensure that institutional policies and rules are followed. These partners may have additional options and factors for CTL leaders to consider. In addition, union rules or the leader’s position in their organization may limit their ability to change the CTL’s structure. In these cases, addressing the remaining HR components can still support CTL agility.

Directional shifts in a CTL can lead to staff uncertainty and stress, making it hard to be agile. Identifying a change process can help CTL leaders manage their staff through a pivot. Bridges and Bridges (2016) provide one model. They emphasize the psychological transitions needed to implement a change and identify a three-stage process (with corresponding emotions and actions):

an ending phase, including losing and letting go (fear and denial);

In the neutral recalibration zone, staff can feel lost and the leader may not have answers to help. Uncertainty is characteristic of this stage, reducing comfort with strategies that would normally increase staff autonomy, like participatory decision-making (e.g., Kaner, 2014). Though paralyzing for some, the instability of the neutral zone can be exciting for others. This stage represents a chance to create and introduce new structures and initiatives generated by CTL leaders or staff and can be leveraged as an effective transformative stage. The new beginning stage is when the changes coalesce and openness to learning and commitment to the group is renewed: it is the time to settle in to a new normal. Today’s pace of change may no longer allow for fully settling in before the next change begins, requiring CTL leaders to address the turnaround and new letting go responses without much time in the coalescence stage.

By considering organizational change phases, CTL leaders can plan a thoughtful and intentional process for helping staff co-create and transition to a new center direction.

For strong organizational alignment and meaningful work life, leaders should aim to bring the CTL direction to life in individual staff goals (called goal cascading in HR; Hunt, 2014). Even if the institution does not promote the use of annual performance goals, identifying goals or expectations for a project, role, or year helps staff find meaning in their work and understand how they contribute to their CTL.

When a CTL’s direction pivots, individual staff may also need to be agile, taking on new roles or areas of responsibility or sharing ownership of a project or service area with CTL colleagues or another unit. One way to support staff when making such changes is to revise their goals with them. CTL leaders should seek to give staff as much agentic voice in goal-setting as is feasible to achieve commitment, where the person “not only agrees to the request but also actively supports it as well” (University of Minnesota Libraries, 2010, Chapter 13.3).

Another HR strategy for goal buy-in is to consider each individual’s constellation of motivations. Hunt (2014) lists five motivations that people have, in varying combinations, when working. Considering these motivations (as summarized in Table 2) can assist leaders in understanding why staff prioritize some goals or projects over others. When discussing or developing goals, CTL leaders can listen for staff values in their statements or concerns or provide the motivations table to spur conversation.

Undoubtedly, motivations will vary across a team, which can require adjustments to messaging. When speaking with a group about CTL changes, communicating multiple relevant motivations can also help messaging resonate with all staff (e.g., address job security, clarify contribution to strategic plans, speak to opportunity for individual growth). Reflexively, a leader can also identify their own motivations to avoid any tendency to focus primarily on what motivates them when communicating with staff.

Individual motivations are sensitive to context and may shift over time as institutional, CTL, and personal contexts change (e.g., institutional cuts can heighten security-driven motivations, while a student-focused strategic initiative can further purpose-driven motivations). CTL leaders are urged to attend to even long-time staff members’ motivations when co-developing goals. If a staff member seems resistant or even unresponsive, consider their motivations and transition stage and whether those are being adequately addressed in discussions. Reframing this type of negative response from the perspectives of motivation and transition can restart a stalled conversation and help support staff in making changes.

The first step in building capacity around attitudes is understanding what makes an attitude exist and perpetuate. While attitudes include the values that people hold, more specifically “an attitude is our assessment of ourselves, other people, ideas, and objects in our world” (Petty et al., 1997). In this social psychology framing, attitudes are contextual, learned, and changeable. But they are also deeply rooted in three components, which the Tripartite Model of Attitudes identifies as affective (feelings and emotions), behavioral (past and future activity), and cognitive (thoughts and beliefs), as originally labeled by Rosenberg et al. (1960) and is currently taught (e.g., Daffin & Lane, 2021). Attitudes are also composites that can contain internal contradictions (e.g., “I find presenting scary, but I regularly volunteer to present”).

Attitudes are vitally important because they deeply shape workplace behavior and resulting culture. An individual’s attitudes about their work and workplace can predict that person’s behavior and, once formed, persist unless addressed, particularly when the attitudes form based on direct experience (e.g., Daffin & Lane, 2021; University of Minnesota Libraries, 2010, Chapter 4.2). For example, a staff member’s bad experience with a collaborator who did not contribute fairly to a shared project may result in an attitude of anger or fear around collaborating, actions to reduce collaborations, or division of work in visible ways rather than a joint deliverable. The staff member may also have beliefs, thoughts, or assumptions about the foolhardiness of relying on others. Often implicit and tricky to shift, attitudes impact intended and resulting behavior, including potentially stopping staff from engaging in tasks or adopting expected approaches that emerge from changes in CTL directions or roles.

Tulgan (2017) cautions leaders to be wary of the common managerial mistakes of “treating attitude as a personal issue, an internal state of mind that is off limits; treating attitude as an unchangeable matter of personality (‘that’s just who I am’); and talking about attitude in vague terms or indirectly” (para. 4). In addition, waiting to address, or avoiding, the uncomfortable situation that conflicting attitudes create is not effective: inaction can cause real harm to the CTL since inappropriate attitudes can become further entrenched and be adopted by additional staff members. Knowing how to encourage shifts in attitudes is an important leadership skill. As a result, we identify three strategies to support attitudinal change, based on the limited HR behaviorist approach to shift individuals’ attitudes via training (e.g., Hunt, 2014), social psychology (see Daffin & Lane’s 2021 summary of findings), and practice wisdom.

At their root, attitudinal shifts have emotions, beliefs, and behavioral patterns that take time, care, and patience to uncover and address. Attitudinal changes are often not quick, but direct interventions can support agility and create an improved working environment. In times of change, underlying emotions and beliefs can be heightened, but CTL leaders still need to act. When the impact of a negative attitude is particularly problematic, additional accountability measures may be required (see DIRECT feedback in next section).

Change situations often result in staff taking on new or adjusted tasks or goals, so it is important to communicate clearly and directly about staff performance in their areas of responsibility. As a game changer for practice and scholarship in this area, Posner (2004) highlights Ralph and Walker’s Adaptive Mentorship framework (Ralph, 2004; Ralph & Walker, 2011a, 2011b), which can be used to identify staff members’ confidence and competence with specific tasks. Staff confidence and competence can vary across different parts of their role (e.g., facilitating a workshop or coordinating speakers), specific processes (e.g., co-designing a workshop with a faculty member or designing a workshop solo), or contexts (e.g., facilitating an optional workshop or facilitating a departmental retreat).

CTL leaders and managers can observe their staff to develop an assessment of each individual’s confidence and competence. Staff can also be asked to provide their own perceptions of these two dimensions for their tasks or goals. Seeking such self-assessments from staff can help build their self-awareness and support capacity-building. However, to provide honest responses, staff need to trust their managers, which may be a challenge during times of change and uncertainty (see Direction-Setting). It can be helpful to remind staff that managers want them to succeed. In addition, having an ongoing functional accountability process normalizes a reflective and agile approach to adapting and celebrating ED work.

Within the Adaptive Mentorship framework, Ralph and Walker (2011a) recommend managers adjust their approach according to each person’s confidence (“self-assurance and feelings of security or safety,” p. 295) and competence (“ability to perform a skill accurately with a level of expertise,” pp. 295–296) for a specific task or role. Figure 3 describes what managers may see and how they could respond based on a staff person’s confidence and competence.

Staff benefit from clarity and shared understanding with their manager through engaging in accountability conversations. This section provides specifics about the approaches identified in Figure 3.