
































Microsoft Word - 169+redlines_JH_final.docx


 

VOL. 11, NO. 1 
SPRING 2022 

 

The Great Generalization  
Organizational Adaptation Strategies as Entrepreneurship in Higher 
Music Education 

Jacob Hertzog 
University of Arkansas 

ABSTRACT: This study sought to measure how higher music education has evolved 
in response to the music industry’s digital revolution. I utilized a framework of organ-
izational adaptation theory to synthesize five distinct organizational adaptation strat-
egies: decentralization, generalization, specialization, formalization, and inaction. 
Music leaders were surveyed (n = 100) to assess adaptations across ten common do-
mains in higher education. Higher music education was found to have undergone a 
great generalization through the expansion of activities in nearly every domain. Con-
sistent with elements of organizational adaptation theory, and like individual musi-
cians, higher music education has been entrepreneurial in response to the digital 
revolution. KEYWORDS: organizational adaptation, higher music education, organi-
zational adaptation strategy, organizational entrepreneurship, decentralization, gen-
eralization, digital revolution, music industry, music unit, music leader, great gener-
alization, formalization, specialization, inaction, music, music education. 
DOI: doi.org/10.34053/artivate.11.1.169 

Introduction 
Musicians are natural entrepreneurs. For centuries, composers, performers, and music makers, 
in addition to their art, have applied their boundless creativity to commerce and organization 
building (Krueger, ; Myers, ; Tschumck, ). Haynes and Marshall argue that “‘mu-
sician’ and ‘entrepreneur’ are two sides of the same coin, reflecting the same cultural root within 
capitalist modernity” (, p. ). The music industry of the twentieth century gave rise to en-
trepreneurial record labels, music publishers, venues, and concert promotors (Hull et al., ). 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

2 

The very genesis of hip-hop, currently the most popular musical genre worldwide, synthesized 
musical expression with entrepreneurial virtuosity to break through to mainstream audiences 
(International Federation of the Phonographic Industry [IFPI], ; Snell & Söderman, ). 
Due to the music industry’s digital revolution and rise of new economic models, the era of the 
recorded music industry waned in the early s, so music creators and music firms adopted 
new business strategies, new forms of art, and new ways to connect with audiences (Fairchild, 
; Morris, ; Smith & Telang, ; Tschmuck, ). Economist Alan Krueger () 
argued that innovations in music have influenced innovation across other cultural industries 
and the economy as a whole.  

Against this backdrop of innovation, the educational systems that train musicians have 
been subject to the same artistic and market forces that have produced entrepreneurial behavior 
from music creators (Gandre, ; Miller, ; Tschmuck, ). Music programs in colleges, 
universities, and conservatories (higher music education) evolved alongside the modern music 
industry; thus they face the same challenges (Butt, ; Gandre, ). Contrary to the music 
industry’s slow evolution in the twentieth century however, the digital revolution in the music 
industry presented higher music education with an environmental paradigm shift demanding 
discipline-wide evolution. This study sought to explore higher music education’s response to 
this digital revolution. While previous research has focused on individual programs (Kelman, 
), music administrators (Sorensen, ), or music students (Bennett, ), this study uti-
lized a framework of organizational adaptation for a field-level approach. Drawing upon nine 
major theories of organizational adaptation, I created an organizational adaptation strategy ty-
pology to operationalize and measure the strategies that individual music programs are employ-
ing as a response to the digital revolution. The major research question in this study was: What 
organizational adaptation strategies are music programs using to adapt to the digital revolution 
in the music industry? Within this question this paper address two specific levels of inquiry: 

. What organizational adaptation strategies do programs exhibit in specific domains? 
. What organizational adaptation strategies does the entire field exhibit? 

In light of the connection between individual musicians and entrepreneurial behavior, this 
study also sought to compare these organizational adaptation strategies to organizational entre-
preneurship on a broad scale. 

Theoretical Framework 
Major mid-century theories of organizational adaptation describe multiple pathways through 
which organizations respond to a changing or turbulent environment (Aldrich, ; Khand-
walla, ; Sporn ). From nine major theories and Chaffee’s () constructs of organi-
zational strategy, I synthesized a typology of five organizational adaptation strategies to serve as 
the framework for this study. Entrepreneurial behavior is present across several of these major 
organizational adaptation theories. As Sarasvathy () writes: “The essential agent of 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

3 

entrepreneurship is an effectuator: an imaginative actor who seizes contingent opportunities 
and exploits any and all means at hand to fulfill a plurality of current and future aspirations” (p. 
). In their exploration of arts entrepreneurship, Callander and Cummings () highlight 
“remaking: renewal” as one of multiple dimensions of entrepreneurship. Relevant to academic 
organizations is the conceptualization of “entrepreneurship as a process for reorganizing an ex-
isting organization or institution” (p. ). This type of entrepreneurial remaking and renewal 
through reorganizing and expanding is characterized by the organizational adaptation strategy 
of generalization: the expansion of organizational activities without changing organizational 
structure. Generalization as an organizational adaptation strategy is well represented in prior 
literature. Quinn and Cameron’s () work on the life cycles theory of organizations describes 
the formative stage of an organization’s existence as entrepreneurial—a time when organiza-
tions are occupied with “innovation, niche formation and creativity” (p. ). Aldrich’s () 
contributions to population ecology theory describe the need for organizations to expand their 
activities when the shape of their environmental niche evolves. In resource dependence theory, 
organizations need to generalize their scope of activities to acquire new resources (Pfeffer & 
Salancik, ). Strategic choice theory, the backbone of contemporary management literature, 
describes the concept of domain offence by which organizations seek to exploit new weaknesses 
in a changing environment (Child, ).  

In contrast to generalization, four other organizational adaptation strategies can be synthe-
sized from existent organizational adaptation theory: () decentralization, () specialization, () 
formalization, and () inaction. In () decentralization, organizations respond to change by 
breaking their structure into more semi-autonomous units. This behavior is described in stra-
tegic choice theory (Child, ) as domain creativity, wherein organizations create new struc-
tures to expand into new environments. Contingency theory posits that organizational struc-
tures become more organic and fluid in challenging environments (Donaldson, ; Lawrence 
& Lorsch, ). Decentralization represents the late stage of Quinn and Cameron’s () life 
cycles model; elaborate structures are a hallmark of mature organizations. More contemporary 
theories such as the network organization theory (Powell, ) highlight the power of infor-
mation sharing and lateral structures within organizations.  

The antithesis of generalization is an organizational adaptation strategy of () specializa-
tion in which an organization “doubles-down” and either invests greater resources in current 
activities or eliminates fringe activities (Bastedo, ; Child, ; Gumport & Snydman, ; 
Sporn ). Population ecology theory prescribes this strategy as occurring when organiza-
tions face changing amounts of environmental resources (Aldrich, ). The domain defense 
concept within strategic choice (Child, ) additionally positions organizations as choosing 
to focus on only their core strengths. Contrasting with the strategy of decentralization is () 
formalization: an organizational adaptation strategy that consists of creating organizational 
structures around previously fringe activities. (Birnbaum, ; Cameron & Quinn, ; 
Child, ; Khandwalla, ). Major top-down action is present in cybernetic theories 
(Ashby, ) as well as the theory of symbolic action (Pfeffer, ) where leadership plays a 
powerful role in organizational direction. The aforementioned life cycles theory includes a 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

4 

consolidation stage encompassing a formalization strategy, and resource dependence theory as-
cribes centralizing managerial control as an effective way to manage dependencies (Quinn & 
Cameron, ; Pfeffer & Salancik, ). Finally, in the face of dramatic environmental change, 
an organization can also do nothing. () Inaction as an adaptation strategy is commonly at-
tributed to lack of decision-making abilities (Khandwalla, ) or the general isomorphic prin-
cipals often at play in organizations with strong professional traditions such as higher education 
(Donaldson, ). Table  displays each synthesized organizational adaptation strategy with 
its operational definition and major theoretical sources.  
 
Table 1: Typology of Five Organizational Adaptation Strategies Synthesized from Nine Major The-
ories 

Strategy Definition Theoretical Sources 

Decentralization An organization splits its structure into a 
greater number of autonomous or semi-auton-
omous units. 

Contingency Theory (Lawrence 
& Lorsch, ); Network The-
ory (Powell, ); Life Cycles 
(Cameron & Quinn, ) 

Generalization An organization diversifies its activities with-
out substantial alteration in organizational 
structure. 

Life Cycles (Cameron & Quinn, 
); Population Ecology (Al-
drich, ); Strategic Choice 
(Child, ) 

Inaction An organization makes no changes, either in-
tentionally, or unintentionally. 

Institutional Isomorphism (Di-
Maggio & Powell, ); Cyber-
netics (Ashby, ) 

Specialization An organization “doubles-down” and invests a 
greater share of its resources and energy in its 
current activities or eliminates less-effective 
activities. 

Population Ecology (Aldrich, 
); Strategic Choice (Child, 
);  

Formalization An organization strengthens managerial con-
trol over all activities or builds structure 
around fringe activities in order to exert cen-
tralized direction. 

Life Cycles (Cameron & Quinn, 
); Cybernetics (Ashby, 
); Symbolic Action (Pfeffer, 
); Resource Dependence 
(Pfeffer & Salancik, ) 

Literature Review 
Scholarship on higher music education has blossomed over the last twenty years, and Jørgensen 
() argues that “research into higher music education has come of age” (p. ). However, 
little of that scholarship focuses on the way in which higher music education reacts and interacts 
with the music industry (Jørgensen, ). Scholars as diverse as Khandwalla () (organiza-
tional studies), Gandre () (higher music education), and Tschmuck () (music indus-
try), all demonstrate that the organizational environment for higher music education is the mu-
sic industry; thus titanic economic shifts in the music industry would necessitate adaptation in 
higher music education. Tschmuck () comments specifically on the “obligation of music 
education institutions to provide such knowledge and skills for a new generation of 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

5 

artepreneurs” (p. ). 
The obligation described by Tschmuck () stems from the paradigm shift caused by the 

digital revolution in the music industry. Beginning with the proliferation of digital recording—
the launch of Napster in the late s and culminating in the rise of digital streaming plat-
forms—each component of the music industry transformed to become more complex and de-
mocratized for music creators (Fairchild, ; Tschmuck, ). The recorded music industry, 
previously based upon the manufacture and sale of physical recordings, is now dominated by 
major technology firms that control music streaming and digital distribution (Nordård, ). 
This has created a paradox of access wherein musicians have greater ability to create, distribute, 
and promote music, yet the music industry’s skewed distribution of revenue and notoriety in 
favor of the top one percent of artists has only increased (Coelho & Mendes, ; Krueger, 
). This same trend plays out in the arena of live music where musicians have capitalized on 
touring to replace income generated by physical sales, driving up concert ticket prices (Krueger, 
). As social media platforms have become the major modes of music discovery, and entre-
preneurial virtuosity becomes the coin of the realm for music creators, this paradox of access in 
the music industry portends profound change within higher music education (Krueger, ; 
Mulligan, ). 

Gandre’s  historical study of the seven independent conservatories in the United States 
dating back to the nineteenth century represents an impressive body of scholarship on how 
music institutions have adapted to their changing environment. Through creative expansion, 
conservatories weathered shifts in enrollment, financial challenges, and new demands from stu-
dents and faculty (Gandre, ). Gandre’s work precludes the digital revolution, but it show-
cases numerous examples of organizational behavior consistent with the strategies previously 
described. While not an empirical study, the history of the National Association of Schools of 
Music (NASM)—the specialized accrediting body for music—illustrates how the field of higher 
music education evolved into a more formalized and regulated academic discipline (NASM, 
). Similar to critiques of accreditation across higher education (e.g., Young et al., ), 
NASM’s history additionally elucidates how accreditation in music has both facilitated and pre-
vented change (NASM, ).  

Perspectives on individual actors in higher music education occupy many of the conversa-
tions around adapting to the digital revolution. Sorensen’s () survey of department chairs 
found that the lived experiences of music department chairs highly influence their efforts to lead 
change. Studies of music students and alumni frequently highlight the challenges faced by mu-
sicians trying to prepare for the post-digital music industry. Bennett’s () work demon-
strated the need for greater integration of music industry business training into curricula across 
higher music education. Addressing this need is the subject of Kelman’s () research on en-
trepreneurial learning in music. Her hands-on learning projects guide students in practicing 
music industry skills such as artist booking, management, and entrepreneurship.  

While change among literature in higher music education is rare, literature on the need for 
change in higher music education is abundant and profound. Owing to the digital revolution in 
the music industry, “[t]he rationale for change in higher music education comes in part from 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

6 

the increasing prevalence of complex careers across the labour market” (Rowley & Bennett, 
, p. ). A landmark report by the College Music Society (CMS) in  challenged music 
programs to provide an “option rich environment” for students that reflected the breadth and 
diversity of contemporary music careers (College Music Society, , p. ). This sentiment is 
echoed by numerous scholars and practitioners, along with the idea that entrepreneurship itself 
be included in all post-secondary musical training (Bartlett & Tolmie, ; Bennett, ; Har-
rison & Grant, ; Kelman, ; Latukefu & Ginsborg, ; Myers, ; Teague & Smith, 
; Tschmuck, ; Young, ). 

Across higher education literature, organizational adaptation is both a singular topic and 
one woven into the fabric of the discipline. Studies focusing exclusively on organizational adap-
tion, such as Sporn’s () study of six major universities or Hilbun’s () work on liberal 
arts colleges, prove the value of organizational adaptation as a powerful analytical tool in higher 
education. Furthermore, higher education is the setting for foundational ideas within organiza-
tional adaptation theory, such as Cameron’s () work on post-industrial environments and 
Birnbaum’s () theories on cybernetic principals in higher education. These studies share an 
institutional-level perspective on multiple challenges faced by colleges and universities ranging 
across political, economic, organizational, and social issues (Birnbaum, ; Hilbun, ; 
Spron, ). 

Common themes spanning the spectrum of higher education scholarship are present in 
studies of both organizational adaptation in higher education and higher music education re-
search specifically. In both fields, bodies of literature exist in ten clear domains. Each domain 
reflects research documenting change, or the need for change, in some aspect of higher music 
education: 

. Curriculum (e.g., Bennett, ; CMS, ; Myers, ; Young, ). 
. Co-Curriculum (e.g., Kelman, ). 
. Full-Time Faculty (e.g., Bok, ; Miller, ; Parkes, ). 
. Part-Time Faculty (e.g., Miller, ; Parkes, ; Stanley, ). 
. Admissions Policies (e.g., Kajikawa, ; Snell & Söderman, ; Tschmuck, ). 
. Leadership (e.g., Child, ; Khandwalla, ; Sorensen, ; Sporn, ). 
. Online Curriculum (e.g., CMS, ; NASM, ; Myers, ; Spilker, ). 
. Governance Changes (e.g., Bastedo, ; Bok, ; Cameron, ; Christensen & 

Eyering, ; Sporn, ). 
. Facilities (e.g., Alexandar, ; Christensen & Eyering, ). 
. External Partnerships (e.g., Alexander, ; Christensen & Eyering, ; Kelman & 

Tschmuck, ). 

These domains additionally represent areas of change within higher education that can be 
both universally understood by administrators and other constituents and examined more nar-
rowly in the context of music programs. The theoretical framework establishes the power of 
organizational adaptation theories to illuminate the nature of change in higher education (Cam-
eron, ; Hilbun, ; Manning, ; Sporn, ). Additional scholarship clearly 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

7 

demonstrates that: (a) the music industry has been significantly disrupted by the digital revolu-
tion (Krueger, ; Tschmuck, ), (b) there is great need for change within higher music 
education in response (e.g., Bennett, ; CMS, ; Myers, ), and (c) there is sporadic 
documentation of organizational adaptation in higher music education; but no previous field-
level studies exist.  

Methods 
I designed a survey instrument using Qualtrics to quantify, measure, and assess the organiza-
tional adaptation strategies of higher music education programs. This instrument is called the 
Higher Music Education Organizational Adaptation Survey. The original survey encompassed 
goals outside the scope of this paper and included a total of fifty-seven items, each correspond-
ing to one of three question types: organizational adaptation strategy, environmental percep-
tion, and institutional and leader characteristics. Only the results of the organizational adapta-
tion strategy of the survey and demographic results are presented in this paper.  

The population surveyed was composed of music leaders—occupying positions such as de-
partment chair or dean—from institutions participating in the Higher Education Arts Data Ser-
vices (HEADS) annual survey of music programs. Most of these institutions are accredited by 
the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM). Specifically, the study focused on those 
institutions that grant either baccalaureate, masters, or doctoral degrees in music. Music leaders 
provide annual data to NASM and HEADS about their programs, therefore I constructed a da-
tabase of  music leader contacts by visiting the public websites of each institution listed in 
the – HEADS report. An initial invitation to participate was sent to each contact con-
taining a link to the survey followed by three reminder emails exactly one week apart. From the 
original  emails sent,  surveys were successfully delivered. Following four weeks of data 
collection,  valid responses were obtained for a response rate of ..  

To operationalize and measure organizational adaptation strategy, the survey included 
forty dichotomous items across ten domains covering the five previously discussed organiza-
tional adaptation strategies. Four items were included in each domain. Similar to methods used 
in quantitative organizational research by Khandwalla () and Lundvall and Kristensen 
(), the survey asked participants to respond “yes” or “no” to a statement about their music 
program in the past five years. The period of five years was selected to account for the pace of 
change within higher education as well as the most recent music industry innovations, such as 
digital streaming and social media (Bok, ; Smith & Telang, ). Each item described an 
action corresponding to an organizational adaptation strategy of decentralization, generaliza-
tion, specialization, or formalization in each of the ten domains: curriculum, co-curriculum, 
full-time faculty, part-time faculty, admissions policies, leadership, online curriculum, govern-
ance changes, facilities, and external partnerships. I wrote the items in the survey section based 
on the literature review as Crocker and Algina () allow that researchers may create items 
based upon prior research where concepts or behaviors “that have been most frequently studied 
by others are used to define the construct of interest” (p. ). 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

8 

I created a scoring scheme for the scale that expressed the complexity of organizational 
adaptation strategy (Sporn, ) by allowing respondents to select multiple responses to items 
in each domain across the typology spectrum. “Yes” answers corresponding with decentraliza-
tion were coded . “Yes” answers corresponding to generalization strategies were coded . Spe-
cialization strategies with “yes” answers were coded -, and strategies of formalization with “yes” 
answers were coded -. All “no” answers were coded , considered as corresponding to the strat-
egy of inaction. For reference in the analysis, items were coded for each strategy and each do-
main (i.e., G corresponds to the generalization strategy in the domain of full-time faculty). The 
seven demographic items in this survey were: free-standing/embedded status, public/private 
status, music unit region (using the IPEDS regions), music unit size, types of degrees offered, 
music leader background, and music leader current position.  

All data analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 
software and descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on all the Organizational Adaptation 
Strategy (OAS) items (Rea & Parker, ). Validity in this study was heavily dependent upon 
the face validity of each item on the survey instrument (Croker & Algina, ). The items were 
written to express actions and vocabulary commonly known to administrators and faculty in 
higher education (Bok, ; Ruben, et al., ). Since many items contained the term music 
unit, this term was defined in the survey’s introduction as a blanket term referring to a music 
department, music school, music college, or independent music conservatory or institution. Re-
liability was assessed using Croker and Algina’s () recommendation of coefficient alpha as 
an appropriate lower bound for reliability in survey research. This coefficient was evaluated for 
the -item OAS scale (a = .). 

Results 

Sample 

Prior to analysis, a frequency analysis of the demographic results was performed. This sample 
included more public (.) than private music units (.), and it was overwhelmingly 
composed of embedded music units. The size ranges of music units were relatively even, with 
slightly fewer music units included that contained over  students. Demographic results for 
music unit status, free-standing or embedded status, and size range are presented in table .  
 
Table 2: Music Units’ Status, Organizational Type, and Size 

Music Unit Status* Frequency Percentile 

Public  . 

Private  . 

Organizational Type** Frequency Percentile 

Free-Standing  . 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

9 

Embedded  . 

Size Range by Number of Music Majors** Frequency Percentile 

-  . 

-  . 

-  . 

-  . 

+  . 

 *N = ; **N =  

The results for the region of music units in this sample were skewed toward those in the 
southeast (.), with uneven distribution across the other region categories. Music units in 
this sample conferred a wide variety of degree combinations. For ease of analysis, these catego-
ries were combined to reflect those music units where the highest degree conferred was either 
bachelors (.), masters (), or doctoral (.). Results for the region and degrees con-
ferred items are presented in table . 
 
Table 3: Music Units’ Region and Highest Degree Conferred 

Region* Frequency Percentile 

New England  . 

Mid-East  . 

Great Lakes  . 

Plains   

Southeast  . 

Southwest  . 

Rocky Mountains  . 

Far West  . 

Degrees Conferred**  Frequency Percentile 

Bachelors  . 

Masters   

Doctoral  . 

*N = ; **N= 

Music leaders in this sample primarily had backgrounds in classical performance or com-
position (.), and those with music education backgrounds represented the second largest 
category (.). All other background types were small proportions of this sample. The most 
prominent position held by music leaders was department chair (), with other positions 
sparsely represented. All results for music leader background and current position are displayed 
in table .  



ARTIVATE 11.1 

10 

 
Table 4: Music Leaders’ Primary Background and Current Positions 

Music Leader Primary Background Frequency Percentile 

Classical Performance or Composition  . 
Jazz or Pop Performance or Composition  . 
Music Education  . 
Music Business or Law  . 
Musicology or Music Theory  . 
Music Technology or Music Production  . 
Outside of Music  . 

Music Leader Current Position Frequency Percentile 

Department Chair/Head  . 
Program Director  . 
Dean  . 
Chief Academic Officer   
President  . 
Other  . 

N =  

Individual Domain Organizational Adaptation Strategies 

To assess music units’ responses in each individual domain, frequency tables displayed the num-
ber of institutions responding “yes” and “no” to each OAS item, providing a portrait of the kinds 
of adaptations in which programs are engaging to respond to music industry change. In the 
domain of curriculum items, formalization was the dominant strategy with . of respond-
ents answering “yes.” However, generalization also represented a high percentage of “yes” an-
swers (.). Although music units adopted curriculum strategies in large percentages, spe-
cialization through the discontinuation of elective courses outside of current programs 
represented the lowest percentage of “yes” responses (). Domain results for curriculum are 
displayed in table A. 
 

Table 5A: Domain: Curriculum 

Item Strategy N Yes () No () 

D. We have created one or more new pro-
grams 

Decentralization  . . 

G. We have created new courses in subjects 
where we previously had not offered instruc-
tion 

Generalization  . . 

S. We have discontinued elective courses that 
did not fall within current programs  

Specialization    

F. We have created new courses to better ful-
fill aspects of our unit’s mission 

Formalization  . . 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

11 

 
In the domain of full-time faculty, formalization was the dominant strategy with . of 

“yes” responses compared to decentralization (.), generalization (.), and specializa-
tion (.). Domain results for full-time faculty are displayed in table B. 
 
Table 5B: Domain: Full-Time Faculty 

Item Strategy N Yes () No () 

D. We have hired new full-time faculty as pro-
gram directors, coordinators, or department 
heads 

Decentralization  . . 

G. We have hired full-time faculty in subject 
areas where we previously had no specialists 

Generalization  . . 

S. We have eliminated full-time faculty posi-
tions with specialties outside of our traditional 
offerings 

Specialization  . . 

F. We have hired new full-time faculty as re-
quired by our mission or strategic plan 

Formalization  . . 

 
The part-time faculty domain results indicated a strong preference among respondents for 

a strategy of generalization with . answering “yes” to hiring part-time faculty in previously 
unrepresented subject areas. Approximately / of respondents indicated “yes” for items corre-
sponding to decentralization () and specialization (.). Although full-time faculty hir-
ing was found to be most consistently aligned with formalization, part-time faculty hiring 
trended toward generalization. Domain results for part-time faculty are displayed in table C. 
 

Table 5C: Domain: Part-Time Faculty 

Item Strategy N Yes () No () 

D. We have hired new part-time faculty as 
program directors, coordinators, or depart-
ment heads 

Decentralization    

G. We have hired part-time faculty in subject 
areas where we previously had no specialists 

Generalization  . . 

S. We have eliminated part-time faculty posi-
tions with specialties outside of our traditional 
offerings 

Specialization  . . 

F. We have promoted one or more part-time 
faculty to full-time positions 

Formalization  . . 

 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

12 

 
Generalization was also dominant in the domain of admissions policies. A large portion of 

music units indicated the adoption of more musically inclusive audition policies (.). Dif-
ferentiating policies by program, a decentralization strategy, was utilized by nearly ½ of music 
units (), and slightly less than ¼ of responding music units engaged in a reimagining of 
admissions policies for all programs (.), a formalization strategy. Domain results for ad-
missions policies are displayed in table D. 
 
Table 5D: Domain: Admissions Policies 

Item Strategy N Yes () No () 

D. We have differentiated admissions policies 
based on students’ intended program 

Decentralization    

G. We have altered our audition policies to in-
clude greater varieties of musical style 

Generalization  . . 

S. We have narrowed our audition require-
ments to become more selective for one or 
more current programs 

Specialization  . . 

F. We have created new admissions policies 
for all programs 

Formalization  . . 

 
Unique in this study, the leadership domain found music units favoring a strategy of spe-

cialization () over the other strategies. However, a large percentage of respondents also in-
dicated the adoption of strategies of generalization () and formalization (.). The de-
centralization item received “yes” responses from . of respondents. Domain results for 
leadership are displayed in table E. 

 
Table 5E: Domain: Leadership 

Item Strategy N Yes () No () 

D. Our leadership has focused on creating new 
divisions, areas, or departments 

Decentralization  . . 

G. Our leadership has focused on expanding 
the curriculum 

Generalization    

S. Our leadership has focused on reinforcing 
our existing strengths 

Specialization    

F. Our leadership has focused on creating a 
new strategic plan 

Formalization  . . 

 
A clear preference for a generalization strategy was displayed in the domain of online cur-

riculum with . of music units indicating they had created new online elective courses in 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

13 

subject areas where previously no instruction had been offered. The creation of entirely new 
online programs was indicated by . of respondents, and  of music units indicated they 
had transferred existing programs online. Results for online curriculum domain are displayed 
in table F. 
 
Table 5F: Domain: Online Curriculum 

Item Strategy N Yes () No () 

D. We have created new online programs Decentralization  . . 

G. We have created new online courses in 
subjects where we previously had not offered 
instruction 

Generalization  . . 

S. We have discontinued one or more online 
programs  

Specialization  . . 

F. We have transferred existing programs 
online 

Formalization    

 
Music units favored generalization in the governance domain with . of respondents 

answering “yes” to the expansion of existing committee or administrative units’ functions. De-
centralization also received a high percentage of “yes” responses (.), and approximately 
/ of music units (.) indicated they had increased oversight of committees or administra-
tive units, a formalization strategy. Music units indicated a reluctance to specialize in the gov-
ernance domain as only  of respondents answered “yes” to narrowing the duties of commit-
tees and administrative units. All results for the governance domain are shown in table G. 
 
Table 5G: Domain: Governance  

Item Strategy N Yes () No () 

D. We have created new committees or ad-
ministrative units 

Decentralization  . . 

G. We have expanded the functions of existing 
committees or administrative units 

Generalization  . . 

S. We have narrowed the duties of committees 
or administrative offices 

Specialization    

F. We have increased oversight of committees 
or administrative units 

Formalization  . . 

 
Music units were almost evenly split between generalization and decentralization in the co-

curriculum domain, slightly favoring new programs (. “yes” responses) over expanding 
existing programs ( “yes” responses). Few music units indicated they had discontinued co-
curricular programs (.), and approximately ¼ expressed a formalization strategy of in-
creased administrative involvement (.). The results also more broadly suggest that about 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

14 

/ of music units are adding or expanding co-curricular programing. Domain results for co-
curriculum are displayed in table H. 
 
Table 5H: Domain: Co-Curriculum 

Item Strategy N Yes () No () 

D. We have created new co-curricular pro-
grams, organizations, or activities 

Decentralization  . . 

G. We have broadened the activities of exist-
ing co-curricular programs 

Generalization    

S. We have discontinued co-curricular pro-
grams 

Specialization  . . 

F. We have increased administrative involve-
ment in co-curricular programs 

Formalization  . . 

 
Results in the domain of facilities were heavily skewed toward the generalization strategy 

(modification of existing facilities), which was selected by . of respondents. Decentraliza-
tion in the form of creating new facilities was engaged in by only . of responding music 
units. The discontinuation of older facilities (specialization), and the acquisition of facilities ex-
ternally (formalization) were both utilized by less than  of music units, . and ., re-
spectively. Results from the facilities domain are displayed in table I. 

 
Table 5I: Domain: Facilities 

Item Strategy N Yes () No () 

D. We have built or created new facilities Decentralization  . . 

G. We have modified existing facilities in or-
der to accommodate a broader range of activi-
ties 

Generalization  . . 

S. We have discontinued the use of older facil-
ities 

Specialization  . . 

F. We have acquired facilities from external 
organizations 

Formalization  . . 

 
Generalization was slightly favored in the external partnership domain, receiving . 

“yes” responses. Developing new partnerships, a strategy of decentralization, was also utilized 
by over half of music units (.). Music units demonstrated reluctance to discontinue part-
nerships, a specialization strategy, with only . of respondents indicating “yes” on this item. 
Interestingly, . of units indicated increasing administrative involvement in external 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

15 

partnerships, a strategy of formalization. Results from the domain of external partnerships are 
displayed in table J. 
 
Table 5J. Domain: External Partnerships 

Item Strategy N Yes () No () 

D. We have developed new partnerships with 
external organizations 

Decentralization  . . 

G. We have expanded the scope of our exist-
ing collaborations with external organizations 

Generalization  . . 

S. We have discontinued external partner-
ships or collaborations 

Specialization  . . 

F. We have increased administrative involve-
ment in external partnerships 

Formalization  . . 

 
The major feature of these results is the collective trend toward organizational adaptation 

strategies of generalization across the field of higher music education. This trend is most prom-
inent in the domains of part-time faculty and facilities, but it is also favored in admissions pol-
icies, online curriculum, governance, and external partnerships. Leadership was the only do-
main in which specialization was the dominant strategy, and co-curriculum was the only 
domain in which decentralization was the dominant strategy. Formalization was indicated by 
the greatest number of respondents in both curriculum and full-time faculty domains. Im-
portantly, even in domains where generalization was not the dominant strategy, it was indicated 
by a large percentage of music units, leading to the conclusion that generalization is omnipres-
ent across the sample. Small differences separated generalization from the dominant strategy in 
curriculum and co-curriculum (<), and the most pronounced difference was in the leader-
ship domain (). The full-time faculty domain showed greater formalization than generali-
zation by .. Table  highlights the percentage of music units in each domain employing the 
dominant organizational adaptation strategy and the percentage employing generalization 
when generalization is not dominant.  
 
Table 6. Dominant Organizational Adaptation Strategies  

Domain Dominant Organiza-
tional Adaptation 
Strategy 

Music Units Utilizing 
Dominant Strategy () 

Music Units Employ-
ing Generalization () 

Curriculum Formalization . . 

Full-Time Faculty Formalization . . 

Part-Time Faculty Generalization .  



ARTIVATE 11.1 

16 

Admissions Policies Generalization .  

Leadership Specialization   

Online Curriculum Generalization .  

Governance Generalization .  

Co-Curriculum Decentralization .  

Facilities Generalization .  

External Partnerships Generalization .  

 

Furthermore, in nine of the ten domains, the generalization strategy was adopted by more 
than / of music units (µ = ). Full-time faculty was the only domain in which less than / 
of music units are employing a strategy of generalization. Table  demonstrates the prevalence 
of generalization across higher music education by domain.  
 

Table 7. Generalization Strategies by Domain in Higher Music Education 

Domain Generalization Item Percentile 

Curriculum We have created new courses in subjects where we previ-
ously had not offered instruction 

. 

Full-Time Faculty We have hired full-time faculty in subject areas where we 
previously had no specialists 

. 

Part-Time Faculty We have hired part-time faculty in subject areas where we 
previously had no specialists 

. 

Admissions Policies We have altered our audition policies to include greater vari-
eties of musical style 

. 

Leadership Our leadership has focused on expanding the curriculum  

Online Curriculum We have created new online courses in subjects where we 
previously had not offered instruction 

. 

Governance We have expanded the functions of existing committees or 
administrative units 

. 

Co-Curriculum We have broadened the activities of existing co-curricular 
programs 

 

Facilities We have modified existing facilities in order to accommo-
date a broader range of activities 

. 

External Partnerships We have expanded the scope of our existing collaborations 
with external organizations 

. 

Field-Level Organizational Adaptation Strategies 

Multiple composite scores were created to address the organizational adaptation of higher mu-
sic education at the field-level. Using the coding system described previously, the total Organi-
zational Adaptation Strategy (OAS) score of each institution was summed to create a composite 
OAS score that was reflective of that institution’s overall organizational adaptation tendency. 
The OAS composite scale has a range from - to . Fixed points on the composite score scale 
correspond to theoretical nodes of organizational behavior. A score of  would be interpreted 
as extreme decentralization with extreme generalization (a music unit adopted every single 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

17 

decentralization and generalization strategy). Scores near  would signify a heavy reliance on 
decentralization while scores near  would correspond to a predominance of generalization. A 
music unit that responded “no” to all questions would score a perfect zero and would be asso-
ciated with a strategy of extreme inaction. Mirroring the positive end of the scale, scores clus-
tering near - would indicate heavy adoption of specialization strategies while scores near - 
would indicate a reliance on formalization. Finally, - would indicate a music program re-
sponding “yes” to every specialization and formalization item on the survey. 

The absolute value of each of the institution’s responses was summed to create the absolute 
value of the organizational adaptation strategy score, |OAS|. This score, with a range of –, 
reflects an institution’s efforts at overall change, weighting more extreme strategies (i.e., greater 
amounts of organizational change) of decentralization and formalization (Cameron, ) 
more heavily than generalization and specialization. OAS scores that reveal overall tendencies, 
and |OAS| scores which reveal overall change, provided useful discipline-spanning data when 
averaged across institutions. Four individual OAS composite scores were also created for de-
centralization, generalization, specialization, and formalization. These scores awarded a “” for 
“yes” answers to any of the items corresponding to that strategy and a “” for items correspond-
ing to the other three strategies. Each individual OAS composite score had a range of -. An 
additional composite score for inaction was created by awarding a “” for each “no” response 
and a “” for each “yes” response. The inaction composite score had a range from - and 
represented the level of inaction employed by music units. The mean, minimum, maximum, 
mode, and standard distributions of each composite score were examined to assess the distri-
bution of institutions’ responses across the organizational adaptation strategy typology and in-
dividual strategies (Crocker & Algina, ).  

First, the  items on the OAS scale were evaluated for reliability (a = .). As Croker and 
Algina () recommend values >. for reliable scales, the OAS scale is in an acceptable range. 
OAS scores were then evaluated for the entire sample (n = ) on a histogram to confirm a 
normal distribution. Following this assessment, the composite scores for each organizational 
adaptation strategy—decentralization, generalization, specialization, formalization, and inac-
tion—were also assessed for normality via histograms. Through prior coding in Qualtrics, all 
composite scales and scoring were already present in the exported data set.  

To gain a macro-understanding of the organizational adaptation strategy trends in higher 
music education, descriptive statistics for OAS, the organizational adaptation strategy compo-
site, |OAS|, the total adaptive action composite, and individual organizational adaptation strat-
egy composites are presented in table . 

 
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Adaptation Strategy Variables 

Scale N Min Max Mode µ s 

Total OAS  -   . . 

Absolute OAS     . . 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

18 

Decentralization Composite     . . 

Generalization Composite     . . 

Specialization Composite     . . 

Formalization Composite     . . 

Inaction Composite    a .  

a Multiple modes exist;  and . 

 
Because organizational adaptation strategies are not exclusive constructs, these composite 

scores provide insight on the mixture of organizational adaptation strategies employed by music 
units. The OAS score mean (.) supports the individual domain results indicating an overall 
field-wide trend toward strategies of generalization. The relatively high mean of generalization 
(.) compared to decentralization (.) and formalization (.) additionally buttresses this 
large-scale trend. Specialization has the lowest mean (.), an indication that music leaders 
answered “yes” to fewer specialization items than any of the other strategies. The inaction com-
posite was found to have a mean of . and a range nearly spanning all possible scores (-). 
The |OAS| score mean (.) was near the center of the range (-) but slightly skewed toward 
less total adaptive action and greater numbers of lower scoring items, generalization and spe-
cialization.  

Following the descriptive assessment, OAS scores were evaluated using frequency plots to 
display how music units were arrayed across the organizational adaptation typology as indicated 
by their OAS scores. In addition to the nodes for fixed and extreme OAS scores, table  presents 
OAS scores across the entire range of organizational strategies along with the percentage of mu-
sic units trending toward each strategy. 
 
Table 9. Distribution of OAS Scores on the Organizational Adaptation Typology Spectrum 

Organizational Adaptation Strategy OAS Composite Score Range Scores 
() 

Extreme Decentralization with Extreme Generalization   

Exclusive Decentralization   

Trending Toward Decentralization  -  . 

Exclusive Generalization  . 

Strategies Trending Toward Generalization  -  . 

Extreme Inaction  . 

Strategies Trending Toward Specialization - -  . 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

19 

Exclusive Specialization -  

Strategies Trending Toward Formalization - - -  

Exclusive Formalization -  

Extreme Formalization with Extreme Specialization -  

N =  
 

The high percentage of OAS scores trending toward generalization (.) further indicate 
that on the field-wide level, music units are choosing adaptive actions that compose an organi-
zational adaptation strategy consistent with generalization. Across the results, other strategies 
are utilized by music units while, as a field, higher music education’s response to the digital 
revolution in the music industry is firmly in the generalization range.  

Institutional and Music Leader Characteristics 

Analysis across institutional and music leader characteristics was performed for each of the 
composite scores. Scores for music unit region, public/private status, free-standing/embedded 
status, and music leader current position did not indicate significant differences. However, fol-
lowing a recoding of the size groups—disaggregating the data by music units’ size and highest 
degrees conferred—yielded an important conclusion in this study. More complex music units 
had higher mean OAS scores and mean |OAS| scores than less complex music units. This im-
plies that more complex units exhibited greater levels of adaptive action and greater levels of 
generalization when compared to less complex music units. Comparative composite scores for 
music unit size and degrees conferred are indicated in table . 
 
Table 10. Composite Scores by Music Unit Size and Highest Degree Conferred 

Size  N µ OAS µ |OAS| µ D Sum µ G Sum µ S Sum µ F Sum µ I Sum 

<   .  . . . . . 

>   . . . . . . . 

Degree N  µ OAS µ |OAS| µ D Sum µ G Sum µ S Sum µ F Sum µ I Sum 

BA  .  . . . . . 

MA  . . . . . . . 

PhD  . . . .  . . 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

20 

Discussion 

The Great Generalization 

Higher music education has responded to the digital revolution in the music industry by engag-
ing in a great generalization over the past five years. Results from both individual responses and 
composite scales align to paint a portrait of a discipline clearly choosing generalization as a pre-
ferred organizational adaptation strategy. Because higher music education exists within the 
broader music industry, any employment of adaptation strategies can be considered a response 
to this radical environmental change (Aldrich, ; Daft & Weick, ; Khandwalla, ; 
Smith & Telang, ; Tschmuck, ). Across many common domains within higher educa-
tion, music units have expanded their scope, functions, and activities. This great generalization 
is consistent with contemporary entrepreneurial trends within the music industry and is con-
gruent with several major tenants of organizational adaptation theory.  

Gumport and Snydman’s () research confirmed that the expansion of both “bureau-
cratic and programmatic structures” (p. ) of academic organizations allow more areas of 
knowledge to be legitimized by the academy, “a major intellectual role for society” (p. ).  

The music industry has become eminently broad, encompassing new fields, technologies, 
corporate sectors, and entire professions that did not exist only a decade ago (Benett, ; Kel-
man & Cashman, ; Krueger, ; Tschmuck, ). A corresponding generalization of 
higher music education is entirely appropriate to this radical environmental change.  

As musicians have learned new skills sets in art and business (Morris, ; Spilker, ), 
higher music education has broadened its curricula to expand what is taught. The need for “op-
tion-rich curricula that involve student choice in tandem with carefully planned curricular op-
tions” (Myers, , p. ) is directly addressed through these efforts by music units to add 
programs, courses, online courses, and full-time and part-time faculty. The great generalization 
spans beyond teaching and learning to encompass new co-curricular activities for students, an 
approach exemplified by projects such as Kellman’s () Youth Music Industries. More 
broadly still, the internal architecture of higher music education organizations has broadened 
to include more functions and roles played by faculty and staff. Importantly, music units show-
case generalization beyond their institutions, with greater external engagement indicated by 
over / of respondents. As Hoeven and Hitters () write: “it is vital that live music organi-
zations collaborate with local music schools and other educational institutions to provide in-
ternships and performance opportunities” (p. ). This study’s results support the key role that 
higher music education may play in the construction and flourishing of music ecosystems.  

Musicians and scholars impress the importance of modern music students preparing for 
portfolio careers: the musical and non-musical skills needed to operate in many different areas 
of music simultaneously, creating a patchwork of income sources and activities (Bartlett & 
Tolmie, ; CMS, ; Kardos, ; Latukefu & Ginsborg, ; Myers, , NASM, ; 
Tschmuck, ). The great generalization in higher music education suggests that institutions 
are creating portfolio music programs wherein myriad musical and commercial instruction and 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

21 

activities occur. To understand the value of the great generalization, its impacts can be assessed 
from the perspectives of both individual music units and the discipline as a whole. 

While contemporary music students certainly reap the benefits of the great generalization 
through greater opportunities, music faculty, staff, and administrators must work to balance 
demand, costs, and overall mission to ensure success. An organizational adaptation strategy of 
generalization may carry significant risks. For an individual music unit, adopting a generaliza-
tion strategy may cause the addition of too many options without requisite enrollment or reve-
nue growth. New courses, degree programs, faculty, online infrastructure, or external partner-
ships that are not met with enthusiasm from students or increased applications may be viewed 
as unsuccessful experiments and a drain on the entire music unit (Christensen & Eyering, ; 
Miller, ). As with all expansion in higher education, generalization risks incurring expenses 
more quickly than revenue (Bueller, ). On top of the additional resource requirements that 
a strategy of generalization incurs, significant questions remain about the quality of teaching 
and learning during periods of organizational expansion. If individual music units are able to 
support the many simultaneous additions to their activities, then learning outcomes may im-
prove as a result of such programmatic broadening. However, expansion without quality could 
ultimately lead to less successful music units and unclear learning goals across too many pro-
grams and activities.  

A deeper examination of the organizational adaptation strategy results elucidates potential 
ways that music units are working to balance the costs of generalization. Within domains com-
monly regarded as the “core” of academic organizations, such as full-time faculty, curriculum, 
and co-curriculum (Hendrickson et al., ), music units exhibited more formalization and 
decentralization. Domains representing more “fringe” activities, such as external partnerships, 
online curriculum, and part-time faculty (Bok, ; Miller, ), exhibited comparatively 
more generalization. Generalization strategies across domains are more cost effective than de-
centralization or formalization. Single online courses are cheaper to produce than entire online 
programs; adding an extra program with a trusted partner may be cheaper than creating a new 
relationship from scratch, and part-time faculty generally cost less than full-time faculty (Alex-
ander, ). In the entrepreneurial work of remaking an organization (Callander & Cum-
mings, ), music units may be employing generalization strategies to compete in new areas 
while controlling costs and accommodating existing resources. This behavior reflects a central 
tension within academic organizations; the need to experiment and innovate is often at odds 
with organizational and resource constraints (Manning, ; Sporn, ). Similar to 
Gumport and Snydman’s () research, higher education’s historically slow accrual of cur-
ricula, activities, and functions is mitigated by human, budgetary, and traditional bulwarks 
(Bok, ; Bueller, ; Thelin, ).  

At the field-level, the great generalization may ultimately increase competition between 
music units. Bok () explains that “competition among institutions creates a constant pres-
sure to respond to student needs, while also generating much effort to improve and excel” (p. 
). Since all music units are facing the same digital revolution and working to respond to the 
same needs (Bennett, ; Sorensen, ), the risk of mission creep and isomorphic 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

22 

tendencies is exceptionally high (Bastedo, ; Bok, ; DiMaggio & Powell, ). As music 
units have historically defined themselves around narrow missions and goals (i.e., training or-
chestral musicians or jazz composers) (Gandre, ; Stanley, ), expanding programmatic 
missions and activities to accommodate for the vast, new music industry may threaten tradi-
tional core identities. While music units may be ultimately influenced by each other in this re-
spect, organizational theory suggests that the influence of their environment (the music indus-
try) is the driving factor for change (Aldrich, ; Khandwalla, ). The digital revolution 
in the music industry exhibits no signs of slowing down; from the evolution of the musical 
metaverse to new digital streaming platforms and social media apps (i.e., TikTok), the music 
industry environment for higher music education is fantastically dynamic (Smith & Telang, 
). As long as the music industry continues to evolve new careers and new disciplines—as 
well as new genres of music for performance and scholarship—the great generalization in higher 
music education may only accelerate.  
 

The Great Generalization as Organizational Entrepreneurship 

The great generalization in higher music education represents a significant moment of organi-
zational entrepreneurship for the discipline that not only highlights the unique nature of music 
in academe but portends the manner in which other areas of post-secondary education may 
adapt to the twenty-first century economy. When examined in combination with the decentral-
ization found in this study, higher music education has tremendously diversified. Khandwalla 
() connects diversification to entrepreneurship in his findings: “Diversification became an 
important top management goal also when the top management was entrepreneurial and risk 
taking” (p. ). This is especially true in turbulent, dynamic environments such as the music 
industry (Tschmuck, ). Higher music education’s internally complex environments (Mil-
ler, ; Manning, ) may also provide the catalyst for such broader diversification and 
generalization as Greenman’s () work illustrates: the need for “entrepreneurial action to 
resolve complexity in the inter-institutional system [and] to translate ideas into collective goals 
and organizational practices” (p. ). In Quinn and Cameron’s () “entrepreneurial stage”, 
“the success of an organization will tend to be associated with its flexibility, growth, resource 
acquisition and development of external support” (p. ). Indeed, this is exactly what this study 
demonstrates; music units have been investing in experimentation and expansion to grow and 
adapt. The most intriguing conclusion of this observed organizational entrepreneurship shaped 
by Quinn and Cameron’s () theory is the fact that music units’ response to the digital rev-
olution may represent merely an early-stage response to an industrial shift only twenty years 
old. 

Although most music units date back decades or even centuries (Miller, ), the digital 
revolution may have produced a “reset” in their organizational behavior. In contrast to Cam-
eron and Quinn’s () descriptions of mature organizations as occupying a formalization or 
decentralization-centric stage of organizational development, the “entrepreneurial” stage (the 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

23 

first stage of the organizational life cycle) more accurately describes music units in the post-
digital era. They are experimenting with niche formation, innovation, and perhaps even iden-
tity. Returning to previous stages is in fact predicted by life cycles theory whereby “organizations 
may recycle through the sequence [of organization stages] again as a result of unusual environ-
mental events” (Cameron, , p. ). Consistent with this concept, the digital revolution has 
caused music units to organizationally regress toward their earlier, entrepreneurial state. In re-
visiting the entrepreneurial state, music units are actively pursuing new organizational identities 
and markets in the hopes that such efforts will successfully sustain the organization in a chal-
lenging environment. Callander’s () work in arts entrepreneurship demonstrates the value 
of multiple theoretical approaches to the subject. Specifically, she highlights how “emancipatory 
theory emphasizes change creation over wealth creation. In the emancipation model, the entre-
preneur seeks to break up the status quo and break free of perceived constraints” (p. ). Indeed, 
music units working to emancipate their organizations from previous constraints and traditions 
(i.e., curricula, audition requirements, faculty expertise) represents entrepreneurial organiza-
tional behavior. Resource dependence theory describes entrepreneurial behavior as firms work-
ing to increase “product lines” (Pfeffer & Salancik, ). Broadening audition policies, adding 
new online courses, co-curricular activities, and elective courses all suggest efforts to attract stu-
dents that may not have formerly been “customers” of each individual music unit. The goal 
ambiguity ubiquitous in higher education complicates any discussion of a purely output-based 
approach to analysis (Manning, ), however, this study demonstrates that the great general-
ization has significantly increased higher music education’s inputs and outputs.  

Reluctant Entrepreneurs  

Although musicians are known for their entrepreneurial skills (Morris, ), scholarship and 
popular sentiment reflect the complex relationship that music makers hold with their own iden-
tities as entrepreneurs. Haynes and Marshall () found that “[t]he views expressed by the 
musicians that they are entrepreneurial by necessity rather than choice echo the arguments 
found in existing critical accounts of creative labor” (p.). Music as a field has been hit hard by 
the market forces and neoliberal philosophies of employability (Butt, ). In contrast to tra-
ditional attitudes about music as a core attribute of the enlightened and educated human 
(Gandre, ), the contemporary music student is aware of their own need to commercialize 
their skills (Bennett, ). Music units in this study may be Hayes and Marshall’s () “re-
luctant entrepreneurs,” working to adapt even when adaptation necessitates unwanted change. 
From the population ecology perspective, music units adopting generalization strategies allows 
them to move outside of their narrow range of activities: “Some organizations that are unable 
to acquire enough resources by specializing in a limited range of products or services manage 
to survive by becoming generalists” (Aldrich, , p. ). If becoming a generalist allows an 
organization to survive at the expense of its core mission or identity, how might that organiza-
tion evaluate the efficacy of such adaptation? Higher music education’s tendency to exhibit 
more generalization and entrepreneurial behavior in domains at the periphery of their 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

24 

organization’s activities (i.e., hiring part-time faculty) offers a clue. Similar to musicians who 
may develop new secondary or tertiary skills, such as digital marketing, while maintaining their 
core identity as musicians (Haynes & Marshall, ; Morris, ), music units may view en-
trepreneurship as an attempt to branch out without substantial alteration in the main body of 
their work. The theories of cybernetics additionally expound that organizations can haphaz-
ardly accrue activities simply through chasing possible opportunities (Ashby, ; Birnbaum, 
). Music units in this study may be accidentally generalizing when faculty, staff, and stu-
dents are all pushing the organization in new directions without strong centralized leadership 
(Birnbaum, ; Sporn, ). 

Complexity and Entrepreneurial Behavior 

In this study, two proxies for organizational complexity—music unit size and highest degree 
conferred—acted as de facto predictors of the total amount of organizational adaptation strate-
gies adopted. Music units with higher complexity exhibited significantly more generalization 
overall. Contrary to Quinn and Cameron’s () theory in which the more nimble and younger 
organizations will exhibit more generalization and entrepreneurial behavior, this study illus-
trates that larger, more complex music units that are often regarded as less nimble in higher 
education (Bastedo, ; Bok, ) were the more adaptable music units. This conclusion also 
challenges common practice thinking about larger organizations as difficult to change (Khand-
wall, ). If large music units with multiple degree levels can adopt a variety of adaptation 
strategies in the face of the digital revolution, it presents a positive future for complex music 
units in the digital age. However, the opposite may be true for less complex music units. Those 
that are lacking in resources may be unable to adopt a successful concoction of adaptation strat-
egies or sufficient entrepreneurship to survive and grow. This would be consistent with the his-
torical research by Gandre () wherein music units were susceptible to failure when they 
were unable to adapt to their changing environment. In this respect, music units may resemble 
liberal arts colleges and other small institutions in their vulnerability to environmental change 
(Hilbun, ; Thelin, ). Because music units are so varied in their scope and mission 
(NASM, ), less complex music units may well have niche markets and less need to adapt to 
their changing environment. In this respect, demographic results must be interpreted carefully 
to be equitable to all types of music units. This study does imply that music units choosing to 
utilize fewer adaptive actions should have concrete reasons for such a choice so as not to reflect 
a cybernetic approach (Birnbaum, ; Child, ).  

Musical Foreshadowing 

A crucial consideration that results from this study is the importance of entrepreneurship as 
organizational behavior in all of higher education. Though much has been written on organiza-
tional entrepreneurship in higher education (e.g., Buller, ; Christensen & Eyering, ; 
Seikkula-Leino & Salomaa, ), this study demonstrates that single discipline units facing 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

25 

extreme environmental change employ predominantly generalization behavior consistent with 
theories on organizational adaptation and entrepreneurship. In the early stages of the digital 
revolution, the changes in the music industry were recognized as a harbinger of trends to come 
in other economic sectors (Fisher, ). Similar digital revolutions have now transpired in the 
newspaper industry, the film industry, the book publishing industry, and increasingly, higher 
education itself (Alexander, ; Levine & Van Pelt, ; Smith & Telang, ).  

From its very inception, higher education as an organizational field has tended to general-
ize and expand (Bastedo, ; Thelin, ), but now it may need to increase the pace of this 
change and engage in more dramatic and dynamic entrepreneurial behavior as digital technol-
ogy advances. Just as in the music industry, technology firms and disruptive innovations are 
permeating the higher education ecosystem and adding to the turbulence of the environment 
(Alexander, ; Levine & Van Pelt, ). The risks that academic organizations take by not 
adapting to this digital revolution in higher education will far outweigh the risks of engaging in 
entrepreneurial experimentation. Higher education leaders in every field should examine higher 
music education’s efforts at evolution for insights on the entire enterprise; for while some music 
units will be successful, longevity is by no means assured. The history of post-secondary musical 
organizations is littered with closures, mergers, and missteps (Gandre, ; Miller, ). 
However, successful adaptations in the music discipline may point the way for all of higher ed-
ucation as this study demonstrates that music is becoming more broad, more accessible, more 
outward facing, and more diverse. These are promising trends that should be emulated across 
the academy. Despite the potential for music units to adopt generalizing behavior in a reticent 
manner, it remains that they are remaking their organizations for the new era. From the per-
spective of musicians themselves, music units are in fact imitating the enterprising, entrepre-
neurial behavior of music creators (Morris, ; Young, ). In so doing, they will certainly 
continue to thrive in the post-digital age.  

Limitations 
The main limitation in this study was the small sample size (n = ). While this is common in 
the social sciences (Rea & Parker, ), higher music education is also limited by small popu-
lation size. Limiting the scope of respondents to only higher music education in the United 
States also limited the potential for a larger sample size and comparative analysis between music 
units domestic and abroad. A further and natural limitation was the reduction of all possible 
organizational behaviors down to forty dichotomous items. Absent in this study was a “second 
level” of detail on music units’ behavior. While the results showed that they are adding new 
courses, which courses was not measured. An additional limitation was the homogeneity of the 
survey respondents themselves. Each respondent was an academic leader in higher music edu-
cation, thereby eliminating the perspectives of other organizational members such as faculty, 
staff, and students. Because higher music education leaders are internal stakeholders in higher 
music education, a natural limitation of this study was the lack of perspectives from those out-
side higher music education, especially those in the music industry environment. A final 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

26 

limitation of this study was the lack of outcome variables. Although this study measured organ-
izational adaptation strategy, perhaps imperfectly, no outcome variables were assessed. Follow-
up research could easily utilize a similar methodology for organizational adaptation strategy 
and include outcome variables common in higher music education such as enrollment, philan-
thropic success, or learning outcomes and graduation data. Such work could broaden the scope 
of this research to include other areas of higher education. 

Suggestions for Future Research and Recommendations for Practice 
The most logical follow-up to this study would be qualitative research on how higher music 
education is adapting to the digital revolution. The complex nature of entrepreneurship in aca-
deme validates such an approach (Seikkula-Leino & Salomaa, ). Organizational adaptation 
studies should be conducted on other disciplines within higher education, and on higher edu-
cation organizations in the digital age. Similar to the music industry, the most valuable ques-
tions will concern the interplay between higher education and technology firms entering or 
looking to enter the post-secondary landscape (Krueger, ; Levine & Van Pelt, ). 

All entrepreneurship comes with risk, and the great generalization in higher music educa-
tion represents individual and collective risk for music units. Drawing from multiple organiza-
tional theories (e.g., Aldrich, ; Quinn & Cameron, ), this study suggests music units 
should practice “strategic generalization”: ensure that efforts to generalize and decentralize do 
not inadvertently lead to expansion in all areas. Once a new environmental niche has been dis-
covered, music units should focus resources on those successful adaptations and cease further 
exploratory expansion. The sooner music units arrive at new market areas through the great 
generalization, the more quickly they will be able to stay ahead of the higher education landscape 
and the more likely their success will be in the digital music era.  

Gandre’s () work demonstrated that higher music education is always on the edge. 
Adapting to the evolving digital revolution may continue to pose challenges for higher music 
education. However, musicians and music units show remarkable resilience when faced with 
the need to adapt. Adaptation has even inspired some of the greatest rock stars. Higher music 
education must take its advice from the wisdom of David Bowie on his  release Changes: 
“Turn, and face the strange.” 

References 

Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and environments. 
Prentice-Hall. 

Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. 
Chapman and Hall.  

Bastedo, M. N., (Ed.). (2012). The organization of higher 
education: Managing colleges for a new era. John 
Hopkins University Press. 

Bennett, D. (2016). Developing employability in higher 
education music. Arts & Humanities in Higher 

Education, 15(3–4), 386–413. 
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics 

of academic organization and leadership. Jossey-Bass. 
Bok, D. (2013). Higher education in America. Princeton 

University Press. 
Buller, J. L. (2015). Change leadership in higher educa-

tion: A practical guide to academic transformation. 
Jossey-Bass. 

Butt, J. (2018). Should there be a twenty-first century 



ARTIVATE 11.1 

27 

‘complete kapellmeister’?: The skills, content, and 
purposes of a university music degree. In B. Heile, E. 
M. Rodriguez, & J. Stanley (Eds.), Higher education 
in music in the twenty-first century (pp. 11–29). 
Routledge.  

Callander, A. (2019). Artmaking as entrepreneurship: Ef-
fectuation and emancipation in artwork formation. 
Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts., 
8(2), 61–78.  

Callander A., & Cummings, M. (2021). Liminal spaces: A 
review of the art in entrepreneurship and the entre-
preneurship in art, Small Business Economics, 57(2), 
739–754. 

Cameron, K. S. (1984). Organization adaptation and 
higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 55(2), 
122–144. 

Coelho M. P., & Mendes J. Z. (2019). Digital music and 
the ‘death of the long tail’. Journal of Music Business 
Research, 101, 454–460. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.015 

Chaffee, E. E. (1985). Three models of strategy. The 
Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 89–98. 

Child, J. (1972). Organization structure, environment 
and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociol-
ogy, 6, 1–22. 

Christensen, C. M., & Eyering, H. J. (2011). The innova-
tive university: Changing the DNA of higher educa-
tion from the inside out. Jossey-Bass. 

College Music Society. (2014). Transforming music study 
from its foundations: A manifesto for progressive 
change in the undergraduate preparation of music 
majors. http://www.mtosmt.org/is-
sues/mto.16.22.1/manifesto.pdf 

Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Towards a model of 
organizations as interpretation systems. The Acad-
emy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295. 

Donaldson, L. (1996). The normal science of structural 
contingency theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. 
R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies 
(pp. 57–76). Sage. 

Fairchild, C. (2016). Crowds, clouds, and idols: New dy-
namics and old agendas in the music industry, 1982–
2012. American Music, 33(4), 441–476. 

Gandre, J. (2001). And then there were seven: A historical 
case study of the seven independent American con-
servatories of music that survived the twentieth cen-
tury [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, 
Lincoln]. ProQuest. 

Greenman, A. (2013) Everyday entrepreneurial action 
and cultural embeddedness: An institutional logics 
perspective. Entrepreneurship & Regional Develop-
ment, 25(7–8), 631–653. 
DOI:10.1080/08985626.2013.829873  

Gumport, P. J. & Snydman, S. K. (2002). The formal or-
ganization of knowledge: An analysis of academic 
structure. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(3), 
375–408. 

Harrison, S., & Grant, C. (2016). Chasing a moving tar-
get: Perceptions of work readiness and graduate ca-
pabilities in music higher research degree students. 

British Journal of Music Education, 33(2), 205–218. 
Haynes, J., & Marshall, L. K. R. (2018). Reluctant entre-

preneurs: Musicians and entrepreneurship in the 
‘new’ music industry. British Journal of Sociology, 
69(2), 459–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468- 
4446.12286  

Hilbun, A. J. (2013). Liberal arts colleges during the great 
recession: Examining organizational adaptation and 
institutional change. [Doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Arkansas]. ProQuest. 

Hoeven, A., & Hitters, E. (2019). The social and cultural 
values of live music: Sustaining urban live music 
ecologies. Cities, 90, 263–271. 

Hull, G. P., Hull, G., Hutchison, T., & Strasser, R. (2010). 
The music business and recording industry: Delivering 
music in the twenty-first century. Taylor & Francis 
Group. 

International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. 
(2019). Music Listening 2019: State of the Industry. 
https://www.ifpi.org/downloads/Music-Listening-
2019.pdf 

Jørgensen, H. (2010). Higher music education institu-
tions: A neglected arena for research? Bulletin of the 
Council for Research in Music Education, 186, 67–80.  

Kajikawa, L. (2019). The possessive investment in classi-
cal music: Confronting legacies of white supremacy 
in U.S. schools and departments of music. In K. W. 
Crenshaw, L. C. Harris, D. M. HoSang, & G. Lipsitz, 
(Eds.), Seeing race again (1st ed., pp. 155–174). Uni-
versity of California Press. 

Kelman, K. L. (2015). From music student to industry 
professional: An entrepreneurial learning design 
[Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of 
Technology]. ProQuest. 

Krueger, A. B. (2019). Rockanomics: A backstage tour of 
what the music industry can teach us about econom-
ics and life. Currency. 

Latukefu, L., & Ginsborg, J. (2019). Understanding what 
we mean by portfolio training in music. British Jour-
nal of Music Education, 36(1), 87–102. 

Lawrence, L. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization 
and environment. Harvard Business School Press. 

Levine, A., & Van Pelt, S. (2021). The great upheaval: 
Higher education’s past, present, and uncertain fu-
ture. Johns Hopkins University Press.  

Manning, K. (2018). Organizational theory in higher edu-
cation (2nd ed.). Routledge.  

Mulligan, M. (2014). The death of the long tail: The super-
star music economy. http://www.pro-
mus.dk/files/MIDiA_Consulting_-_The_Death_ 
of_the_Long_Tail.pdf 

Morris, J. W. (2014). Artists as entrepreneurs, fans as 
workers. Popular Music and Society, 37(3), 273–290. 

Myers, D. E. (2016). Creativity, diversity, and integration: 
Radical change in the bachelor of music curriculum. 
Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 15(3–5), 
293–307. 

National Association of Schools of Music. (1999). Histor-
ical perspectives, national association of schools of 
music 1924–1999. https://nasm.arts-accredit.org/wp-



ARTIVATE 11.1 

28 

content/uploads/sites/2/2016/02/Historical-Perspec-
tives.pdf 

Nordgård, D. (2018). The music business and digital im-
pacts: Innovations and disruptions in the music in-
dustries. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-91887-7 

Parkes, K. A. (2015). The evaluation of music faculty in 
higher education: Current practices. International 
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Educa-
tion, 27(1), 119–129. 

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The 
creation and maintenance of organizational para-
digms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1–52.  

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control 
of organizations. Harper & Row. 

Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: 
Network forms of organization. Research in Organi-
zational Behavior, 12, 295–336.  

Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational life 
cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some 
preliminary evidence. Management Science, 29(1), 
33–51. 

Rea, M. L., & Parker, R. A. (2005). Designing and conduc-
tion survey research: A comprehensive guide. Jossey-
Bass.  

Rowley, J., & Bennett, D. (2019). Leading change in 
higher music education pedagogy and curriculum. 
In J. Rowley, D. Bennett, & P. Schmidt (Eds.), Lead-
ership of pedagogy and curriculum in higher music 
education (pp. 178–187). Routledge.  

Ruben B. D., De Lisi, R., & Gigliotti, R. A. (2017). A guide 
for leaders in higher education, core concepts, compe-
tencies and tools. Stylus Publishing LLC. 

Seikkula-Leino, J. & Salomaa, M. (2020). Entrepreneurial 
competencies and organizational change: Assessing 
entrepreneurial staff competencies within higher ed-
ucation institutions. Sustainability, 12(7323), 1–16. 

Smith, M. D., & Telang, R. (2016). Streaming, sharing, 
stealing: Big data and the future of entertainment. 

MIT Press. 
Snell, K., & Söderman, J. (2014). Hip-hop within and 

without the academy. Lexington Books. 
Sorenson, B. D. (2007). A quantitative study of music 

leaders at national association of schools of music ac-
credited institutions and their four roles: Faculty de-
veloper, leader, manager, and scholar [Doctoral dis-
sertation, Capella University]. ProQuest. 

Spilker, H. S. (2012). The networked studio revisited: Be-
coming an artist in the age of piracy cultures. Inter-
national Journal of Communication, 6, 773–794. 

Sporn, B. (1999). Adaptive university structures: Analysis 
of adaption to socioeconomic environments of US and 
European universities. Jessica Kingsley Publishers 
Ltd. 

Stanley, J. (2016). The making of a music academy. Ham-
ilton Books.  

Teague, A. & Smith, G. D. (2015). Portfolio careers and 
work-life balance among musicians: An initial study 
into implications for higher music education. British 
Journal of Music Education, 32(2), 177–193. 

Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher educa-
tion (2nd ed.). The Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Tschmuck, P. (2017). The economics of music. Agenda 
Publishing. 

Young, S. D. (2018). A work of art in the age of techno-
logical disruption: The future of work in the music 
industry. Journal of the Music and Entertainment Ed-
ucators Association, 18(1), 73–103. 
https://doi.org/10.25101/18.3 

Young, K. E., Chambers, C. M., & Kells, H. R. (1983). 
Understanding accreditation. Jossey-Bass. 

Note: This study has IRB approval from the University  
of Arkansas. 

Cover image credit: In Your Ear Studios, Richmond, 
VA, Will Fisher, Wikimedia Commons: https://com-
mons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neumann_U87_Con-
denser_Microphone_on_the_piano_-_Stu-
dio_A,_In_Your_Ear_Studios.jpg

 


