The array of challenges that higher education faces today is virtually unparalleled when compared to any other point in U.S. history. The litany of changes is familiar to those in the field of higher education: financial pressure, growth in technology, changing faculty roles, public scrutiny, changing demographics, competing values, and the rapid rate of change in the world both within and beyond our national boarders. The changes many institutions face have accelerated beyond tinkering; more campuses each year attempt to create comprehensive (or transformational) change. Yet, change strategies have not been exceedingly helpful in their capacity to guide institutions, and we know even less about how to facilitate major, institutionwide change. The current change literature in higher education provides mostly generalized strategies about what is effective: a willing president or strong leadership, a collaborative process, or providing rewards (Roberts, Wren, & Adam, 1993; Taylor & Koch, 1996). This broad writing may mask information helpful to advance institutional change on a specific campus. Achieving buy-in or communicating effectively can seem very empty to institutional leaders and higher education scholars. Can this strategy be used at every institution and in the same way? The assumptions behind this approach are that each strategy is enacted similarly on each campus and that nuance and context do not much matter. Broad change strategies are presented as uniform, universal, and applicable. As an alternative, some scholars of organizations suggest that meaningful insight to understand the change process comes from context-based (micro-level) data (Bergquist, 1992). Context-based data help the change agent to understand why and under what circumstances strategies work at a particular institution at a particular time. The difficulty of working at the micro-level is becoming too specific and idiosyncratic to be of much help to others. As Hearn noted, the first and fundamental proposition we can stress about change is so simple as to seem banal or deflating, depends (Hearn, 1996). Idiosyncratic observations are often of little use to practitioners. The challenge is to chart a middle ground and identify findings informative at a level that can be used to guide change processes. This task is challenging, because markers that one might use to determine the level of detail or the appropriate level of abstraction are not readily apparent. One solution to charting meaningful middle ground is through a cultural perspective. Organizational research in the 1980s illustrated the impact of culture on many aspects of organizational life (Peterson & Spencer, 1991). Yet, there have been few empirical studies examining how institutional culture affects change processes and strategies. The assumption from the organizational literature is that culture will be related to the change process; specifically, change processes can be thwarted by violating cultural norms or enhanced by culturally sensitive strategies (Bergquist, 1992). This study attempts to fill the gap in the literature, moving beyond generalized principles of change, by adopting a two-tiered cultural framework to examine the effect of institutional culture on change strategies across six institutions. The two research questions addressed are: (1) is the institutional culture related to the change process, and how is it related? and (2) are change processes thwarted by violating cultural norms or enhanced by culturally sensitive strategies? The two theories adopted for exploring the relationship of culture and change are Bergquist's (1992) four academic cultures and Tierney's (1991) individual institutional culture framework. The dual level of analysis offers a multiple-lens perspective that is better suited to understand complex organizational phenomena (Birnbaum, 1988; Bolman & Deal, 1991). …