Citation
A comparison of organizational culture between academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators at selected institutions of higher education

Material Information

Title:
A comparison of organizational culture between academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators at selected institutions of higher education
Creator:
Stevens, Irene
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 207 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College students ( jstor )
Colleges ( jstor )
Corporate culture ( jstor )
Cultural studies ( jstor )
Cultural values ( jstor )
Customers ( jstor )
Higher education ( jstor )
Organizational culture ( jstor )
Subcultures ( jstor )
University administration ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership -- UF ( lcsh )
Educational Leadership thesis, Ph.D ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 1997.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 188-196).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Irene Stevens.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
028639223 ( ALEPH )
38863578 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text














A COMPARISON OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE BETWEEN ACADEMIC AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS AND STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS
AT SELECTED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION













BY

IRENE STEVENS


A DISSERTATION STUDY SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1997


































Copyright 1997

by

Irene Stevens
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


This dissertation represents the accumulation of years of classes, projects, and academic endeavors in two doctorate programs. At times it seemed never ending and overwhelming; however, it has been a rewarding experience from which I have grown and matured. This accomplishment would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of a special group of people.

Sincere appreciation goes to my committee members, Dr. Mary HowardHamilton and Dr. David Honeyman, and my committee cochairs, Dr. Art Sandeen and Dr. James Wattenbarger, for their encouragement, support, and patience. A special thank you goes to Dr. Sandeen and Dr. Wattenbarger who encouraged me through the stalling, drafts, and changes with patience and humor.

A thank you goes to my friends in the Office for Student Services at the University of Florida for their professional and psychological support during the past 5 years. A special thank you goes to Dr. Phyllis Meek for her suggestions and proofreading when it did not seem to flow. Another special thank you goes to Doug Diekow for nudging me through the phases and for keeping things in a humorous perspective. I would also like to thank two supportive supervisors, Dr. James Scott and Dr. Tom Hill, who encouraged me to take the time needed to complete the degree so I could go on to the next phase of my life, whatever that may be. Dr. Michael Rollo also deserves a special thank you for his psychological encouragement and computer assistance.









My sincere appreciation is extended to Dr. Marshall Sashkin for

allowing me to use his instrument, the Organizational Culture Assessment Questionaire. He was very helpful and supportive of the research.

A special thank you goes to my best friend, Dr. Linda Thornton. Her encouragement, gentle prodding, emotional support, sound advice, patience, and financial assistance have been invaluable. I thank her for being there and reminding me at every bump along the way that "it is all part of the process; you are writing a dissertation." I owe her a great deal, and I am eternally grateful.

Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, Zelda and LeRoy, who raised me with the belief that anything is possible with hard work and honesty. They are truly pleased that I have finished "the book." I appreciate their support and the values they instilled in me while growing up on that Idaho farm.















TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOW LEDGMENTS ............................................................................................ iii

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... viii

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. ix

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ................................................................ I

Statement of the Problem ....................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study .............................................................................. 3
Justification for the Study ...................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study ..................................................................... 7
Organizational Culture Theory ............................................................ 9
Definition of Terms .................................................................................. 11
Limitations of Study ................................................................................. 12
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................... 13

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................... 14

Origins of Organizational Culture .......................................................... 14
Definitions of Organizational Culture ................................................... 17
Cultural Dimensions ................................................................................ 20
Institutional Culture ............................................................................... 24
Subcultures ................................................................................................ 28
Faculty Subculture .................................................................................. 32
Student Affairs Subculture ..................................................................... 41
Researching Organizational Culture .................................................... 49

3 M ETHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 54

Design of the Study ................................................................................. 54
Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 72
Summary .................................................................................................. 76

4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY ........................................................................... 77

Overview of Chapter ............................................................................... 77
Synopsis of Research Process .............................................................. 77
Results of Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire ......... 79









Chapter Summary .................................................................................... 168

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... 173

R eview of Study ........................................................................................ 173
R eview of Findings .................................................................................. 175
C onclusions ................................................................................................. 18 1
Implications for Academic Affairs and Student Affairs
A dm inistrators ...................................................................................... 183
Implications for Future Research ......................................................... 185
Concluding Remarks ................................................................................ 187

R EFER EN C E S ............................................................................................................ 188

APPENDICES

A INSTRUCTIONS FOR JURY TO VALIDATE THE ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURE ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................... 197

B JURY EVALUATION FORM ....................................................................... 198

C ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURAL ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ........... 199

D COVER LETTER FOR SURVEY DIRECTED TO STUDENT AFFAIRS
ADMINISTRATORS ................................................................................ 203

E COVER LETTER FOR SURVEY DIRECTED TO ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
ADMINISTRATORS ................................................................................ 204

F LETTER TO ADMINISTRATORS CONFIRMING INDIVIDUAL
INTERVIEWS ..................................................... 205

G LETTER TO ADMINISTRATORS REQUESTING PARTICIPATION IN A GROUP INTERVIEW ............................................................................ 206

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................................ 207

















LIST OF TABLES


Table

1 OCAQ Normative Ranges for the Cultural Element Subscores ............. 62

2 Distribution and Return Rate of OCAQ Survey ........................................ 65

3 Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Culture Elements by
Institution ................................................................................................ 81

4 Analysis of Variance Between Academic Affairs Administrators
and Student Affairs Administrators Perception of the
Organizational Cultural Elements ....................................................... 82

5 Student Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations
on M anaging Change ........................................................................... 127

6 Student Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations
on A chieving G oals ............................................................................... 130

7 Student Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations
on Coordinating Teamwork ................................................................. 133

8 Student Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations
on Custom er Orientation ...................................................................... 136

9 Student Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations
on C ultural Strength ............................................................................. 138

10 Academic Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations
on M anaging Change ........................................................................... 144

11 Academic Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations
on A chieving G oals ............................................................................... 148

12 Academic Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations
on Coordinating Team work ................................................................. 151

13 Academic Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations
on Custom er O rientation ...................................................................... 154

14 Academic Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations
on C ultural Strength ............................................................................. 157
















LIST OF FIGURES




1 Bar graph showing means of cultural elements in academic
affairs and student affairs at Gamma University ........................... 100

2 Bar graph showing means of cultural elements in academic
affairs and student affairs at Alpha College .................................... 112

3 Bar graph showing means of cultural elements in academic
affairs and student affairs at Beta State University ....................... 124

4 Bar graph showing student affairs divisional mean scores on
five cultural elem ents .......................................................................... 126

5 Bar graph showing academic affairs divisional mean scores on
five cultural elem ents .......................................................................... 143
















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

A COMPARISON OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE BETWEEN ACADEMIC
AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS AND STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS
AT SELECTED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION By

Irene Stevens

December, 1997


Chair: Dr. James E. Wattenbarger Cochair: Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen Major Department: Educational Leadership

During the past 15 years, the theoretical construct of organizational culture has increasingly been used to explain the nuances of organizations. The functional perspective of organizational culture is derived from the sociological perspective that views all organizations as systems within larger societal systems. Culture is viewed as learned behavior that serves as the glue that holds the organization together and provides organizational identity, stability, and effectiveness. Culture can be uncovered by examining how an organization expresses itself through its rituals and normative behavior and by exploring the underlying values and assumptions within the organization. Although there have been an increasing number of diverse organizational culture studies in higher education, few have dealt with the administrative subcultures. This study examines the organizational culture of two administrative subcultures, the academic affairs division and student affairs division, on three different types of campuses.









Both qualitative and quantitative inquiry methods were used to answer the research questions. The Organizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire, which measured five cultural elements, and semi-structured interviews were used to identify the culture within each division, compare the similarities and differences of two divisions on each campus, and compare the three student affairs cultures and the three academic affairs cultures from an occupational perspective.

The conclusions of the study included the following: (a) student affairs administrators generally rated their cultural elements higher than did academic affairs administrators; (b) there were a high number of cultural similarities among the three student affairs divisions; (c) there were few cultural similarities among all the three academic affairs divisions; (d) academic department chairs did not view themselves as part of the academic administrative culture; (e) the primary customer for student affairs divisions was students, whereas the primary customers for academic affairs divisions were the faculty and academic programs; and (f) the .qualitative and quantitative inquiry methods complemented each other and allowed for comparison of the two administrative subcultures.

















CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION OF STUDY


The study of organizational culture has become one of the major
domains of organizational research, and some might even argue that it has become the most active arena, eclipsing studies of formal structure of organization, environment research, and of bureaucracy. (Ouchi &
Wilkins, 1985, p. 457)


Statement of the Problem

The study of culture grew from the discipline of anthropology. In 1944 Bronislaw Malinowski stated that culture was common to all people and organizations. He wrote that culture involved material aspects (artifacts), norms (standardized modes of behavior), symbolic acts (representing values and beliefs), and activities that are completed to achieve the function of the society or organization (1944). Clifford Geertz (1973), the noted anthropologist, wrote that societal culture "denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which [people] communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life" (p. 25). Culture also became a popular construct used by sociologists to examine organizations and systems within societies (Parsons, 1960). By the 1970s organizational management theorists were applying this concept to organizations as a means of understanding the values, assumptions, and beliefs that guide behavior in organizations. Bergquist (1992), Lindquist (1978), Masland (1985), Schein (1985), and Tierney (1988) supported cultural studies as a means of explaining the nuances of the organization, thereby assisting individuals in










understanding conflicts, behaviors, and decision-making processes within educational institutions.

Organizational culture studies have been adapted to higher education since 1970. A number of researchers have studied the role of organizational culture in institutions of higher education (Austin, 1990; Bergquist, 1992; Bowen, 1977; Chaffee & Tierney, 1988; Clark, 1970; Kirchner, 1992; Platt, 1988). These studies have focused on institutional culture or the relationship of culture to academic leadership.

Few researchers have examined subcultures within the institution,

although Kuh and Hall (1993), Kuh and Whitt (1988a), Martin and Siehl (1983), Tierney (1988), and Van Maanen and Barley (1984) have stressed the importance of examining differences and similarities among organizational subcultures. Administrators and faculty within institutions of higher education represent separate subcultures within the organization (DickersonGifford, 1990; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a; Love, Kuh, MacKay, & Hardy, 1993; Martin & Siehl, 1983). Although both of these groups work toward the general educational mission, they may view the institution and the institutional culture from different perspectives.

All administrative units within a college or university work toward the institutional mission; however, some are more closely aligned to the academic mission of teaching and service than are other administrative units. Student affairs administrators' emphasis on student development is similar to the academic affairs emphasis on teaching and the transmission of knowledge. Personnel within student affairs and academic affairs both work toward teaching the student and interact on a regular basis to achieve the institution's mission. Although both groups are administrators, they approach their roles from their own occupational identity, perspectives, and norms










(Dickerson-Gifford, 1990; Love et al., 1993). Academic administrators come from a faculty background, whereas student affairs administrators usually come from a student development or counseling perspective. Each of these occupational communities has created its own work culture consisting of standards of conduct, rituals for performing routine tasks, specialized language or codes, norms for socializing new members, and values (Love et al., 1993; Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). These differences may cause difficulties and miscommunication between administrative personnel in the two divisions as they work toward achieving the institutional mission.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to use the theoretical construct of

organizational culture to explain how academic affairs and student affairs divisions operate within an institution. The research, using both qualitative and quantitative methodology, examined the organizational culture of these two subgroups. The research assessed and compared the administrative organizational culture of student affairs divisions and academic affairs divisions to determine the similarities and differences in organizational culture between the two administrative divisions. Assessment of the organizational culture of these two subcultures furthers the knowledge of the role culture plays within higher education institutions. Since the research was conducted on different types of institutions, the research also explored whether the organizational cultures in academic affairs and student affairs were institutionally or occupationally based.

This study focused on two occupational subcultures within institutions of higher education, administrators in academic affairs divisions and administrators in student affairs divisions. The cultural exploration of these occupational subcultures was to provide information as to the basic beliefs,










values, and assumptions which guide behavior and provide meaning for administrators within student affairs divisions and academic affairs divisions. The research also explored whether culture within occupational subgroups was institutionally based or occupationally based. A lack of commonalties within the student affairs subcultures and within the academic affairs subcultures would have indicated that the institutional culture was stronger than an occupational culture. The major research questions which were addressed in the study are as follows:

1. What are the shared assumptions, values, and beliefs among

administrators in student affairs divisions and in academic affairs divisions on each campus?

2. What are the similarities and differences between the organizational culture of academic affairs administrators and the organizational culture of student affairs administrators on each campus?

3. What are the similarities and differences among the three institutions' student affairs administrative subculture?

4. What are the similarities and differences among the three institutions' academic affairs administrative subculture?

5. Is there a common organizational culture among student affairs

administrative divisions, even though they may be situated in different types of institutions?

6. Is there a common organizational culture among academic affairs administrative divisions, even though they may be situated in different types of institutions?

This study combined the use of the Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (-Q), developed by Marshall Sashkin (1993), with the general qualitative methodology espoused by Edgar Schein (1985, 1992) to explore the










organizational culture of administrators in student affairs and in academic affairs divisions within three institutions. A description of the methodology is explained in detail in Chapter 3, although the research assessed each division's normative beliefs, values, and assumptions which guided the behavior of its members. The research included the Q , individual interviews, and document analysis within the respective student affairs and academic affairs divisions.

The three institutions studied were representative of different types of educational institutions in the United States. All three institutions were located within the southeastern part of the United States. Alpha College was a 3,500 student traditional liberal arts residential college in an suburban area in Florida. In this study, Alpha represented small private colleges with a predominant undergraduate curriculum. Beta State University was an urban state institution with 16,000 students, 90% of whom were commuters. Although Beta State University had some graduate programs, the primary emphasis of its curriculum was undergraduate education. Beta State University served a diverse and growing metropolitan area in the southeast. Gamma University, a 26,700 student residential and comprehensive institution, was a large statesupported institution with both graduate and undergraduate programs. These three institutions provided the opportunity to examine student affairs administrative divisions and academic affairs administrative divisions on different types of campuses.

Justification for the Study

A cultural understanding of organizations can assist in understanding how an organization responds to events, trends, or particular conditions. Yerkes, Cuellar, and Cuellar (1992) wrote that organizational theorists have shown "that in spite of the complexity and ambiguity of organizations, certain










general principles could be used to analyze these organizations and better understand how individuals and social groups interact within them" (p. 4). Studying the cultural aspect of an organization is one of the primary methods people can use to understand the activities and decisions of an organization (Bergquist, 1992; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a; Maslund, 1985; Sergiovanni, 1984; Tierney, 1988). Edgar Schein (1985), a practitioner in organizational development, wrote that organizational culture should be understood by leaders in the organization for three reasons:

1. Culture has a potent impact on the organization and its members as it is "visible" and "feelable."

2. Culture affects all behavior in the organization; therefore, individual and organizational performance are intrinsically tied to it.

3. Culture is often confused with climate, philosophy, ideology, and style and needs to be known as its separate identity (pp. 24-25). Understanding the culture of the organization can assist leaders and members of that organization in predicting how personnel will react to issues and change.

Kuh and Hall (1993), Kuh and Whitt (1988a), and Martin and Siehl (1983) have mentioned the different subcultures within institutions of higher education: faculty, administrators, and students. A number of studies have been written on the faculty and student subcultures. The faculty/academic subculture studies are reviewed in Chapter 2. The administrative subculture within higher education has received less attention than either of the other subcultures.

Kuh and Hall (1993), Kuh and Whitt (1988a), and Tierney (1988) have suggested that additional research is needed in understanding the administrative subculture. Dickerson-Gifford's 1990 dissertation examined an










aspect of culture when she compared the values of student affairs administrators to academic affairs administrators. One of the few culture related studies was done by Love (1990) which was an examination of the culture of a residence life department. In 1991, Billups examined administrators' perception of the organizational culture within higher education. This study utilized administrators in student affairs, admissions, institutional research, and development. The results indicated that student affairs personnel did view the institutional culture differently than other administrators in the study. Although student affairs personnel viewed institutional culture differently than other administrators, there is little empirical research identifying the culture of student affairs divisions. The identification of the cultural characteristics of student affairs divisions adds to the growing literature on higher education, organizational culture, and occupational subcultures.

Two important subcultures that have a similar function to educate

students are academic affairs and student affairs. To this point no study has undertaken the task of explaining the differences and similarities between the organizational cultures of student affairs administrators and academic affairs administrators. This comparative cultural study assists in filling this void in the literature. Administrators can use the information from this study to understand the cultural similarities and differences between student affairs and academic affairs within the institution, thereby improving the understanding and working relationship between the two administrative units.

Significance of the Study

An organization's culture is often referred to as the "glue" that holds the organization together (Smircich, 1983a). Knowledge of the assumptions










and values that underlie the culture can be used to predict behaviors and reactions to situations. Cultural knowledge can also be used to improve the quality of the environment and the productivity of the organization.

In higher education, the initial assessment of institutional culture was predominantly done by assessing the academic culture of specific institutions (Clark, 1970; Foote, Mayer, & Associates, 1968; Riesman, Gusfield, & Gamson, 1970). This was followed by investigations into the student subculture and the faculty subculture (Becher, 1981; Bess, 1982; Clark, 1980, 1984b; Freedman, 1979; Gaff & Wilson, 1971; Ruscio, 1987). A broader perspective of institutional culture was studied by Bergquist (1992), Bolman and Deal (1991), and Chaffee and Tierney (1988) when they examined various institutions and explained different types of collegiate culture.

The administrative subculture within higher education has received

less attention that either of the other subcultures or institutional culture. Dill (1982), Kuh and Whitt (1988a), and Tierney (1988) have suggested the need for more studies of subcultures, specifically administrative subcultures. They have also recommended the comparisons of subcultures so that understanding between groups on campus can be strengthened. Two administrative divisions that work in conjunction with one another in providing learning opportunities to students are academic affairs and student affairs. Although academic affairs staff and student affairs staff often work on joint projects, it is common to hear that they do not understand each other or the other's perspective. This study adds to the current organizational culture literature in higher education by providing information on the cultures of these two institutional subcultures. Since there is little literature on the culture of student affairs divisions and the administrative subculture, the study also establishes a baseline of information which can be used for future research.










Most studies in organizational culture have utilized qualitative research methodology to identify dimensions of culture. An organization's culture is so immersed within the day-to-day activities that members of the organization have difficulty in identifying the culture, therefore, making quantitative research difficult. Peterson and Spencer (1990) said that the ethnographic methods of open-ended interviews, observations, and the examination of institutional documents are the most appropriate methods of studying organizational culture. This triangulation method was also suggested by Schein (1985, 1992) and Tierney (1988).

Some organizational development experts also stress the importance of quantitative data that can be compared and analyzed (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988). Marshall Sashkin (1990) developed one of the few quantitative instruments that measures aspects of organizational culture. The Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire ( C) measures "the ways that people in the organization generally think and act" (p. 3).

This study combined the use of the Q with qualitative interviews and document analysis. This combination allowed for a more consistent comparison of the findings between the two subcultures in each institution and among similar subcultures in the three institutions. This study is among the first studies to use a quantitative method of studying subcultures in higher education institutions.

Organizational Culture Theory

Studies in organizational culture have primarily originated from the field of anthropology. In the 1940s noted anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski developed the functional theory of culture which viewed culture as an instrument which assisted humans in coping with their basic needs and










maintaining social control. Malinowski (1944) wrote that culture created institutions which were universal to all groups of people. The institutions created in a culture related to different associations among the members to meet their basic needs. Malinowski identified the cultural institutions of "kinship, community, physiological, voluntary associations, occupational associations, rank and status, and comprehensive" as paramount to maintain any society (p. 64).

Allaire and Firsirotu (1984) wrote that the functional school of culture was adapted by sociologists such as Parsons and organizational management theorists such as Mayo, Maslow, Mcgregor, Homans, Ouchi, and Schein. They viewed organizations from a sociocultural systems perspective that saw the organization as a social structure that functioned to meet the satisfaction and needs of its members. They also viewed the organization as a purposeful system which enacted the values of society and its members (Allaire & Firsirotu, 1984).

Another anthropological perspective on culture was identified as an

ideational system by Allaire and Firsirotu (1984). Although different theorists have developed various perspectives, the commonalty is that each views culture as being an interpretation in the individual and collective mind of the members. The cognitive school of thought was espoused by Goodenough (1971) as a system of knowledge which sets standards for perceiving, believing, evaluating, and acting within a society. The organizational management theories of organizational climate and organizational learning use Goodenough's cognitive theory to enhance their position. Argyris and Schon (1978) wrote of organizations developing shared images and maps which help construct members' image of the organization's theory-in-use. They described an organization as being an agency with rules for decisions, delegation, and










membership; a task system of interconnected roles designated to perform specific tasks; and an embedded set of norms, strategies, and assumptions which constitutes its "theory of action" (p. 14).

Another school of thought within the ideational perspective is Clifford Geertz's symbolic theory of culture (Allaire & Firsirotu, 1984). Geertz (1973) viewed culture as coming from the "meaning" shared by actors within the society or organization. Culture is interpreted from the meanings people assign to behaviors, ideas, and thoughts. Organizational management theorists such as Clark, Selznick, Pettigrew, and Wilkins have stressed the importance of an organization's history and leadership in developing a collective meaning which is manifested in the organization's myths, values, sagas, character, and emotional structures (Allaire & Firsirotu, 1984). Symbolic theorists such as Clark, Morgan, Pondy and Smircich have used thick description and ethnomethodological research methods to describe and interpret culture in organizations.

This research utilized the functional theory of organizational culture as

the structure for conducting and interpreting the study. Schein's

methodology for organizational culture research was used as a basis for the interview portion of the study. Sashkin's - , which was based on Parson's theoretical writings, was used for the quantitative portion of the study.

Definition of Terms

It is important that there be a consistent understanding of the terms related to organizational culture. The terms utilized in this study are defined below.










Student affairs administrators are full-time administrators within a student affairs division who are employed in a student development department in the administrative capacity of director, dean, or vice president.

Academic affairs administrators are full-time members of an academic affairs division who serves in an administrative capacity of department chair, dean, or vice president.

Organizational culture is the embedded patterns of organizational behavior and the shared assumptions, values, and beliefs which have developed over time among members of a given organization.

Subculture refers to subgroups within an organization who interact regularly with one another, perceive themselves as a distinct group within the organization, share a common set of values, have a commonly defined set of problems, and act on a basis of understandings that are unique to that group (Van Maanen & Barley, 1985).

Occupational community is "a group of people who consider themselves to be engaged in the same sort of work; whose identity is drawn from the work; who share with one another a set of values, norms, and perspectives that apply to but extend beyond work related matters; and whose social relationships meld work and leisure" (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984, p. 287).

Limitations of the Study

From the definitions of organizational culture and subcultures, it was assumed that student affairs divisions and academic affairs divisions were distinct subcultures within the institutions and had their own cultural attributes.

There were certain limitations that set the parameters of this study. Those limitations were as follows:










1. Although the institutions represented three types of institutions within higher education, a small private institution, a state research institution, and a state urban and commuter institution, they were all located in the southeastern region of the United States.

2. This study did not declare any hypotheses. It answered the research questions by inductively assessing the gathered data and assigning meaning in a cultural context.

Organization of the Dissertation

This dissertation is organized into five chapters. This first chapter provides an overview of the lack of research on the student affairs and academic affairs administrative subcultures within institutions of higher education. The chapter also outlined the proposal for comparing the academic and student affairs administrative subcultures. A review of the related literature is presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 identifies the methodology used in identifying and analyzing the organizational culture of the two subcultures. The results of the data analysis are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the findings and explores additional needs in studying administrative organizational culture.
















CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter examines organizational culture from a variety of

perspectives. After a brief history of the concept of organizational culture, its theories, and definitions are explored. Significant studies on organizational culture in higher education are reported. The concept of subcultures within the organization is discussed, followed by a synopsis of significant studies on faculty and student affairs subcultures in higher education.

Origins of Organizational Culture

Culture has been a concept in anthropological studies for decades; however, only since the 1960s has it been addressed in reference to organizations (Cameron & Ettington, 1988; Smircich, 1983a). Sociologists and organizational management theorists have applied cultural studies to organizations as a means of understanding the embedded beliefs, assumptions, and values of organizations (Allaire & Firsirotu, 1984). The study of organizational culture, having emerged from anthropology, has developed along two different approaches.

Functional Perspective

The functional perspective views culture as an independent variable within the organization which explains its structure, performance, and activities. Researchers in this perspective (Clark, 1970; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981; Parsons, 1960; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Sashkin, 1990; Schein, 1985) view culture as "something the organization has." The organization's










culture is often used to predict the organization's behavior, and it is believed that culture can be managed. This perspective is largely utilized by organizational management theorists, although a few sociologists have discussed the functional aspects of culture.

Talcott Parsons (1960), noted sociologist, wrote about the need to

understand how the structure and processes of an organization combine to form a social system within a larger societal system. Parsons said that all organizations possess a cultural perspective and a role perspective that need to be understood in each organization. The cultural perspective is centered around a system of values which define the functions and patterns of the organization. The primary functions Parsons identified as essential to the organization's cultural perspective and driven by its value system included "goal attainment, adaptation to a situation, and integration of the system" (1960, p. 20). Goal attainment refers to the manner the organization uses to establish goals and procure resources to attain the goals. Adaptation to a situation is related to the way an organization can adapt to changes in goals and procedures. Integration refers to the manner in which members relate to each other and their commitment to the organization. Parsons (1960) emphasized the importance of understanding the cultural perspective of organizations.

Functionalists view culture as learned behavior which serves as the "glue" (Smircich, 1983a) that holds the organization together and provides organizational identity, stability, and effectiveness. Culture is uncovered by examining how an organization expresses itself through its rituals, symbols, stories, and other cultural artifacts. Functionalists believe there are four basic assumptions about culture: (a) culture is cognitive and can be understood by participants and researchers alike; (b) culture has a basic meaning that










participants can understand and identify; (c) culture makes it possible to codify abstract realities; and (d) culture can be predictive and generalizable (Tierney, 1988, p. 15). Functionalists view culture as an integral part of the organization which can be managed by an effective leader, if that leader has knowledge of the cultural aspects of the organization. Interpretive Perspective

Another theoretical perspective views an "organization as a culture"

rather than having a culture. This interpretive perspective derives its origins from traditional anthropology with a sociological perspective. Its origins come from the writings of Geertz and Goodenough, who stressed the symbolic meanings held by the members of the organization or society (Allaire & Firsirotu, 1984). Recent research in organizational behavior and symbolic interactionism have tried to define culture and identify manifestations of organizational culture. The researcher emphasizes immersion in the culture to learn the symbols, language, and rituals of the members in order to understand and identify the culture. The researchers in the anthropological perspective (Barley, 1983; Frost & Morgan, 1983; Geertz, 1973; Smircich, 1983a; Van Maanen, 1979) study culture as the object of their explanation, rather than a means to explain some aspect of the organization.

The organization is viewed as the culture; however, it is based on the process of social interchange among participants. Interpretive researchers have four assumptions regarding culture. They say culture is not necessarily understandable to organization participants or researchers. Not all participants interpret a similar cultural reality; therefore, it is impossible to codify abstract cultural realities. The last assumption is that culture is constantly being interpreted by negotiation between the participant and the researcher (Tierney, 1988). Rituals, symbols, and ceremonies are also studied;










however, they are simply components that shape meanings and cannot be generalizable. The sum of the various interactions that create meaning to organizational participants results in the organization's culture (Tierney, 1988).

Since the 1980s the study of organizational culture has increased significantly. In part, this was due to human resource development consultants who have stressed the importance of culture in understanding organizations. Popular organizational development consultants, such as Deal and Kennedy (1982), Ouchi (1981), Peters and Waterman (1982), and Schein (1985), wrote books expounding the virtues of managers understanding their organization's culture. This emphasis on the cultural aspect of the organization has resulted in various research studies and writings linking culture and leadership (Billups, 1991; Chaffee & Tierney, 1988; Cunningham & Gresso, 1993; Schein, 1985, 1992), culture and organizational change (Martin, 1992; Schein, 1992), culture and organizational theory (Cameron & Ettington, 1988; Frost, 1985; Smircich, 1983a; Van Maanen & Barley, 1985), culture and educational institutions (Bergquist, 1992; Chaffee & Tierney, 1988; Clark, 1972; Kirchner, 1992; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a; Skrtic, 1985; Tierney, 1990), and culture and research methods (Clark, 1972; Lincoln, 1985; Lundberg, 1985; Pettigrew, 1979; Schein, 1985, 1992; Trice & Beyer, 1984; Van Maanen, 1979; Wilkins, 1983). Organizational culture has become one of the current topics in management and organizational studies.

Definitions of Organizational Culture

Although much has been studied and written about organizational culture, there is a lack of agreement as to its meaning within the field. Because researchers come from different theoretical, epistemological, and methodological perspectives, there has been little commonalty among










definitions or outcomes in organizational culture research (Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1991). Those in the functionalist perspective view culture differently than those in the interpretive perspective, although most mention that culture includes the shared beliefs, values, and assumptions passed on to members in the organization.

In Andrew Pettigrew's article (1979) on the analysis of culture, he stated that culture was "the system of such publicly given and collectively accepted meanings operating for a given group at a given time," and he encouraged that culture be studied by analyzing its "symbolic language, ideology, belief, ritual, and myth" (p. 574). Pettigrew's definition implies that cultures change as membership in the organization changes and as new members bring in their own language, values, and beliefs.

Deal and Kennedy (1982) defined culture as a core set of assumptions, understandings, and implicit rules that govern day-to-day behavior in the workplace. An expanded definition was espoused by Bolman and Deal (1991) when they said, "An organization develops distinctive beliefs and patterns over time. Many of these assumptions and patterns are unconscious or taken for granted. They are reflected in myths, fairy tales, stories, rituals, ceremonies, and other symbolic forms" (p. 268).

Kuh and Whitt (1988b) were discussing faculty culture when they said "culture is defined as the collective, mutually shaping patterns of norms, values, practices, beliefs, and assumptions which guide the behavior of individual faculty and groups and provide a frame of reference within which to interpret the meaning of events and actions on and off the campus" (p. 6). Although they were referencing faculty culture, the concepts are relevant to all organizations.








19

Smircich (1983a) defined culture as "the social or normative glue" that holds the organization together and serves four purposes: (a) it conveys a sense of identity for the organization; (b) it facilitates a commitment to something other than itself; (c) it enhances the social system stability; and (d) it assists members in making sense of the organization and guiding their behavior (p. 343-346). Culture is an integral part of an organization and central to understanding an organization.

Rosen (1991) defined culture from a social constructedness perspective. He said that "culture is a constructed document or public rhetoric developed over time through the shared, accumulated experiences of members of any social grouping, giving rise to such system specific ideational elements as assumptions, ideas, values, and norms" (p. 273). The implication is that culture is developed over a period of time and does not change quickly.

Schein (1991) has provided one of the most detailed definitions of culture as

a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved
its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has
worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught
to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in
relation to those problems. (p. 12)

Schein presented three levels of culture which are present in any wellestablished organization: artifacts, values, and basic assumptions. The most visible examples of organizational culture are artifacts of the culture which represent its physical and social environment, (i.e., language, use of technology, use of space, art, and the behavior of its members). The organization's values, what the organization ought to be about, is the second level of culture. The values espoused by the organization's members may be different than those reflected in the behavior in the organization. The third level of culture is more difficult to uncover in the organization. It is composed










of the basic assumptions which have become ingrained in the organization and are now taken for granted. For example, solutions that repeatedly work have become the automatic methodology used whenever a problem arises. These basic assumptions are more difficult to determine in an organization because the members of the organization take them for granted.

There is no common definition of organizational culture; therefore, it is difficult to definitely say what is entailed in culture. The following properties, however, are thought to be shared in organizational culture (Schein, 1991):

(a) observable repeated behavior, such as their language, customs and traditions, and rituals; (b) group norms that guide behavior; (c) values espoused by the organization; (d) the organization's philosophy that determines their actions and attitudes toward different constituents; (e) rules for interacting in the organization; (f) the organizational climate which determines the manner of interactions; (g) the embedded skills held by generations of group members; (h) ways of thinking and talking that are shared with new members through the socialization process; (i) shared meanings among group members; and () the symbols or metaphors that represent the ideas, feelings, and images by which the organization views itself.

Cultural Dimensions

Organizational culture is both a process and a product of the

organization. Culture continually changes as members, especially those in leadership roles, change in the organization. The socialization of new members is extremely important in the transference of the culture to members of the organization. The communication processes, both within the organization and to outside agencies or constituencies, are vitally important in determining the culture. Likewise, the importance of leaders understanding








21

the organization's culture is paramount for leaders wishing to change or fully understand the organization (Peters & Waterman, 1982; Schein, 1991; Sergiovanni, 1984).

One of the ways researchers have attempted to make sense of the

cultural perspective in organizations is through the development of cultural frameworks or dimensions. These frames typically provide a blueprint for examining culture. For example, Trice and Beyer (1984) suggested that culture can be studied by examining and analyzing rituals or rites within the organization. They wrote that the examination of the following six rituals was the best way to understand the complexity of culture: rites of passage, rites of degradation, rites of enhancement, rites of renewal, rites of conflict reduction, and rites of integration. Many researchers indicate that culture can be understood through the observation and examination of rites, sagas, myths, legends, ceremonies, rituals, language systems, procedures, physical space, interaction patterns, and customs. These are the most observable examples of cultural artifacts available to researchers. They, however, do not get at the underlying dimensions of organizational values and cultural assumptions.

Schein (1992) has developed a framework that addresses the basic

assumptions of how an organization's culture implicitly guides members in how they perceive, think about, and feel about things. Schein says that basic assumptions are formed around the following cultural dimensions which are often taken for granted:

1. The nature of reality and truth: The shared assumptions that
define what is real and what is not, what is a fact in the physical realm
and the social realm, how truth is ultimately to be determined, and
whether truth is revealed or discovered.

2. The nature of time: The shared assumptions that define the
basic concept of time in the group, how time is defined and measured, how many kinds of time there are, and the importance of time in the
culture.











3. The nature of space: The shared assumptions about space and
its distribution, how space is allocated and owned, the symbolic meaning
of space around the person, and the role of space in defining aspects of relationships, such as the degree of intimacy or definitions of privacy.

4. The nature of human nature: The shared assumptions that
define what it means to be human and what human attributes are
considered intrinsic or ultimate. Is human nature good, evil, or
neutral? Are human beings perfectible or not?

5. The nature of human activity: The shared assumptions that
define what is the right thing for human beings to do in relating to their environment on the basis of the foregoing assumptions about
reality and the nature of human nature. . . . What is the relationship of
the organization to its environment? What is work and what is play?

6. The nature of human relationships: The shared assumptions
that define what is the ultimate right way for people to relate to each other, to distribute power and love. Is life cooperative or competitive,
individualistic, group collaborative, or communal? . . How should
conflict be resolved and how should decisions be made? (pp. 95-96)

Other researchers have also developed dimensions which guide their

examination of culture. Chaffee and Tierney (1988) stated there were three

themes that cut across their dimensions of cultures. The themes that are

relevant to each dimension include (a) time--which is relevant as history,

tradition, and habit influence the organization's and member's behavior; (b)

space--which is a symbolic and actual context for action; and (c)

communication--which serves as a vehicle through which members perceive

and interpret their world. The overriding dimensions of organizational

culture which evolved from Chaffee and Tierney's (1988) studies included the

following:

1. The Environmental Dimension referred to the understanding
the members of the organization develop about the nature of the
organization's environment.

2. The Structural Dimension referred to the structure by which
the organization accomplishes its activities, including programmatic,
fiscal, and governance mechanisms.

3. The Values Dimension explored whether the organization's
values were congruent with individual and subculture values. (p. 5)











Cameron and Ettington (1988) identified the following dimensions as the most commonly cited or potentially beneficial dimensions of culture in organizations:

1. Cultural strength (the power to control behavior);

2. Cultural congruence (the fit or homogeneity among cultural
elements);

3. Cultural type (the focus on certain dominant themes);

4. Cultural continuity (the extent to which consistency in culture
has been maintained over time);

5. Cultural distinctiveness (the uniqueness of the culture);

6. Cultural clarity (the extent to which the culture is
unambiguously defined, understood, and presented). (pp. 364-365)

Of these dimensions, the two that seemed to receive more attention and were most often cited as the most important dimensions were cultural strength and cultural congruence. Parsons (1960), Deal and Kennedy (1982), Peters and Waterman (1982), and Wilkins and Ouchi (1985) all stressed the importance of a strong culture to push the company forward. They also cited the importance of the cultural fit between the company mission and strategies used to achieve that mission.

Deal and Kennedy (1983) proposed a two-by-two matrix, using a degreeof-risk dimension (low to high) and a speed-of-feedback dimension (low speed to high speed). They determined that any of the four types of culture could be appropriate for a given set of conditions. The four typologies are (a) process (low speed, low risk), (b) bet your company (low speed, high risk), (c) work hard/play hard (high speed, low risk), and (d) tough-guy/macho (high speed, high risk). When examining culture and planning, Ernest (1985) developed a two-by-two model using people's orientation (participative-nonparticipative) and response to the environment (reactive-proactive). He hypothesized that








24

none of the four cultures were better than the others; however, organizations in specific fields should have similar cultures. The four cultural typologies he identified are interactive (participative-reactive), integrated (participativeproactive), systematized (nonparticipative-reactive), and entrepreneurial (nonparticipative-proactive). Other researchers have developed cultural typologies to classify institutions of higher education and faculty. They are presented later in this chapter.

Examining the dimensions of culture allows us to see the important role culture plays in an organization. Culture provides stability for the purpose and social system, conveys a sense of identity for the organization, and serves as the sense-making device for members of the organization. Culture provides meaning and direction for the organization, which can be in a positive or negative direction. Culture represents the collective patterns of beliefs, norms, practices, values, and assumptions that guide the group and individuals and provides a frame of reference for interpreting behavior which occurs externally or internally to the group (Kuh and Whitt, 1988a). Understanding cultural concepts and identifying cultural attributes within an organization can assist the leaders of the organization in furthering the goals of the organization.

Institutional Culture

Culture is influenced by the people connected to the organization,

outside challenges, its mission, and its history and origins (Clark, 1970; Schein, 1985). The culture of an institution of higher education is reflected in how it operates, what is done, and who does it. It is reflected in its decisions, actions, and communication, both at the symbolic and concrete levels. Understanding the cultural perspective of an institution assists members of the organization in understanding decisions, behavior, and its mission. Culture can also help










different subcultures understand each other and reduce adversarial relationships (Tierney, 1988).

There has been some disagreement about whether an institution of higher education can have one culture. Lindquist (1978) said that although American institutions have some deep-rooted values and structures, they were essentially decentralized organizations that did not have a sense of a common community. On the other hand, Dill (1982) described American institutions of higher education as "value-rational organizations with strong cultures, which can be described as ideologies and belief systems" (p.303). The consensus among recent researchers has been that an institution can have an institutional culture, although it also has subcultures. It can also be part of a wider system culture. For example, Clark (1980) said an institution has three levels of culture. The culture of the enterprise was the specific culture of that institution, particularly present in liberal arts colleges. The culture of the academic profession as a national profession was also represented on campus, in addition to the culture of specific academic disciplines. He was relating institutional culture to different types of faculty culture, which was not that uncommon in the early analysis of culture.

Researchers have approached the concept of organizational culture in higher education from different perspectives. Burton Clark (1970), one of the foremost researchers of higher education culture, first examined culture from the perspective of organizational sagas and legends. He also looked at it from the faculty perspective (1980, 1987a) and from the system point of view (1984b). Others have viewed the institutional culture from the academic perspective and examined faculty culture (Becher, 1981; Freedman, 1979; Ruscio, 1987) or related it to leadership (Bergquist, 1992; Chaffee & Tierney, 1988; Schein, 1985, 1992).










The importance of an institution's history and mission in the

development of its culture was emphasized in Clark's (1970) examination of institutional culture at Antioch, Reed and Swarthmore. He stressed the role legends and sagas play in relating the institutional mission and values to new members of the institution. He also identified five components necessary for leaders to build and maintain an institutional culture.

1. Personnel dedicated to the idea the leader proposes.

2. An academic program that is unique and related to the idea,
with appropriate symbols and rituals.

3. A social base of outside constituents which are in support of
the idea.

4. The integration of the student subculture into the institutional
culture, through symbols and rituals.

5. A distinctive institutional ideology that permeates all levels of
the institution. (pp. 250-255)

Other researchers have also identified factors which influence the

institutional culture. Kuh and Whitt (1988a) combined much of the research into seven factors they believed influence the culture. The history of the institution and external factors, such as being a state or private, religious affiliation, and social attitudes are important to culture. The academic program must also support the culture, as must a core group of personnel, usually faculty and lead administrators. The campus social environment will attract a particular type of student that will affect the institutional culture. Campus artifacts, observable manifestations of campus values and beliefs, are also important factors of the culture. These include both the physical environment (landscaping and architecture) and symbolic artifacts such as rites, rituals, and ceremonies. Institutions also have distinctive themes which make them unique, even though they may be a similar type of institution. This distinctiveness is usually more apparent in smaller institutions than in










large comprehensive universities. The last factor Kuh and Whitt identified was the importance of individual actors on the institutional culture. Typically these individuals were presidents who had a profound impact on shaping the institutional culture or maintaining it.

Through research involving reading historic and current institutional materials, observations, interviews, and an occasional survey, researchers have some general conclusions about institutional culture. One of the primary conclusions is that similar type institutions share a common culture and have common experiences (Birnbaum, 1988; Clark, 1985; Martin, 1985). A few researchers have categorized these qualities into specific college cultures. Martin (1985) cited three generic categories for college cultures. The research university culture was viewed as a "pathfinder and disseminator of new knowledge"(p. 80). The comprehensive liberal arts college culture emphasized the institution's contributing to "vital connectedness between the development of the body, mind and spirit"(p. 80). The community college culture stressed the importance of the college serving as the center of "educational services" for the community (p. 80). Birnbaum (1988) took more of an administrative perspective and categorized institutions into four types: collegiate, bureaucratic, political, and anarchical.

An in-depth analysis of institutional cultures was undertaken by

Bergquist (1992) who separated institutions into four cultures. The "collegiate culture" described institutions that are directed toward disciplinary scholarship and research. The collegiate culture also values faculty autonomy, academic freedom, a collegial model of governance, and leaders who possess a vision and are politically astute. Bergquist surmised that the "managerial culture" grew out of Catholic institutions and community colleges. This culture values systematic and efficient methods of teaching and managing,










formal lines of authority, and employs techniques adopted from the corporate world. A managerial culture emphasizes that education serves as a vehicle for upward mobility in society. The "developmental culture" combined some elements of the previously mentioned cultures but is more closely aligned with the managerial culture. A developmental culture values teaching and developing its students, faculty, and staff, although it also emphasizes planning, goal setting, and evaluation. This culture is viewed by some as having institutional values that are idealistic and politically naive. The "negotiating culture" evolved from unions and collective bargaining when other cultures could not meet the needs of their employees. The negotiating culture values equity and egalitarianism and more authority is given midlevel managers through the collective bargaining agreement. These four cultures examined the role of faculty, the educational program, the institution's structure and decision-making process, and institutional values in determining an institution's culture. Bergquist said that although there is a predominant culture on each campus, the other cultures are represented to some extent and interact with the dominant culture. This often occurs within campus subcultures, which is why it is important to study subcultures.

Subcultures

The culture of most organizations provides norms for its members;

however, there are also subgroups that interact on a regular basis that provide standard ways of behaving. Thomas Lasswell (as cited in Arnold, 1970) pointed out that


every group that is at all functional must have a culture of its own that
is somewhat similar to the cultures of other groups with whom it interacts. Such a group culture is not partial or miniature, it is a
complete, full-blown set of beliefs, knowledges, and ways for adjustment
to the physical and social environment. (p. 4)










These groups develop into subcultures which share common problems and experiences. Their interaction creates solutions to the problems and fosters the development of group norms and standards (Cohen, 1970). These subcultures may be related to occupational areas, organizational structure, or ethnic background and often develop a special language and meanings in their culture (Gregory, 1983; Van Maanen, 1979). Although there may be multiple subcultures within large organizations, they will usually share elements of the dominant culture and do not conflict with the organizational mission (Meyerson & Martin, 1987; Van Maanen & Barley, 1985).

Subcultures have been defined differently by various scholars. Bolton and Kammeyer (1972) described subculture as

"a normative value system held by some group or persons who are in
persistent interaction, who transmit the norms and values to
newcomers by some communicated process, and who exercise some sort
of social control to ensure conformity to the norms. Furthermore, the
normative value system of such a group must differ from the normative value system of the larger, the parent or the dominant society" (p. 381). In 1985, Van Maanen and Barley defined a subculture "as a subset of an organization's members who interact regularly with one another, identify themselves as a distinct group within the organization, share a set of problems commonly defined to be the problems of all, and routinely take actions on the basis of collective understandings unique to the group" (p.38).

Van Maanen and Barley (1984) further related subcultures to the organizational setting and talked about occupational communities. They defined an occupational community as

a group of people who consider themselves to be engaged in the same sort of work; whose identity is drawn from the work; who share with one another a set of values, norms and perspectives that apply to but
extend beyond work related matters; and whose social relationships
meld work and leisure. (p. 287)








30

They stated that the motivation for establishing occupational communities was the desire for occupational self control. The elements of an occupational community--defined boundaries, work-related social identity, shared values and meaning within the reference group, and work-oriented social relations-are influenced by the dominant organizational culture, the professionalism of the career, and the structure and management of the organization. For example, loyalty to the organization and management practices can diminish a subculture from meeting the criteria of an occupational community. The work culture of an occupational community was described by Van Maanen and Barley (1984) as having the following characteristics:

1. common meanings and knowledge;

2. integrated assumptions;

3. shared values, vocabularies, identities and occupational
practices;

4. work as a source of meaning and value;

5. judgments based on occupational standards developed over
time;
6. self-control over decisions within the occupation; i.e.,
membership, prescribed conduct, assessment. (p. 307-309)

Culture can serve to support an occupational community, or it can decrease the self-control and prevent it from meeting the criteria of an occupational community.

The types of subcultures within organizations have been the subject of a few scholars. Martin and Siehl (1983) identified three subcultures which can be identified when examining the dominant organization's artifacts and values. "Enhancing subcultures" are those who prescribe to the values of the dominant culture more enthusiastically than others. An "orthogonal subculture" would accept the values of the dominant culture but also prescribe










to a particular set of values for themselves. Their third subculture is the "counterculture," whose core values are in conflict with the dominant culture's values. A more structural perspective was taken by Caudron (1992) who identified four possible subcultures in organizations: "functional, operating unit, hierarchical, and social" (p. 62). Functional subcultures develop around a particular occupation within the organization, such as accounting. Operating unit subcultures may exist in large organizations that have diverse operations, such as teaching and sales/marketing. Hierarchical subcultures may develop at various levels among people in similar positions. Social subcultures involve individuals from various places in the organization, but they share something in common and interact on a regular basis. Racial or ethnic groups may form a social subculture in an organization. Rather than look at structural subcultures, Sackmann (1992) examined subcultural differences in relation to organization members sharing different types of knowledge.

All organizations do not have subcultures within them. The evolution of subcultures is a result of social processes within the development of an organization. Van Maanen and Barley (1985) identified six social processes that can produce subcultures within an organization.

1. "Segmentation" within the organization often occurs around
specialization of skills or functional areas.

2. The "importation" of different cultures can occur with
acquisitions and mergers.

3. "Technological innovation" can create subcultures around
people with specific technical knowledge.

4. "Ideological differences," such as determining the
appropriate methodology for the nature of work, can cause a schism
which produces a subculture.








32

5. The development of a "contra cultural movement" takes place
when individuals feel marginalized by the organization and decide to
resist and deny the dominant culture.

6. "Career filters" refers to the development of subcultures
among people in similar positions, such as top management who learn
to conform to prescribed behavior. (p. 38)

Whether or not subcultures develop within an organization will depend upon the complexity, mission, and structure of the organization. The definition of subculture is still evolving, although most scholars have accepted Van Maanen and Barley's 1985 definition of a subculture as a distinct group of people who interact with one another on a regular basis, share a common set of problems, and act upon a collective and unique understanding.

Numerous subcultures potentially exist within institutions of higher education (Becher, 1984; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a; Tierney, 1988). These groups include faculty, professional staff, clerical and technical staff, students, governing boards, and alumni. The primary subcultures identified by scholars are faculty, students, and administrators. Since this research is directed toward faculty and administrators, further review of the literature pertaining to these two groups follows.

Faculty Subculture

The faculty subculture within higher education has been the subject of more study than any other subculture in education. Faculty culture was often the primary measure of institutional culture in early cultural studies in higher education (Clark, 1970). The academic profession has been viewed both as a homogeneous profession and a compilation of many disciplinary subprofessions. Both perspectives are reviewed in this portion of Chapter 2. A Homogeneous Profession


From the homogeneous perspective, Burton Clark (1984) wrote,








33

Sweeping across all the fields and institutions, assumed by professors of
biology, sociology, and classics alike, is the identity of 'academic man.'
All such men and women, in the doctrines of the profession, are part of
a single 'community of scholars,' sharing an interest that sets them
apart from others. (p. 91)

The origin of the academic profession in higher education in the United States certainly was one of the "academic man" espoused by Clark; however, it has evolved into a more diverse profession since the emergence of specialized academic disciplines. Clark (1987a) said this tie to the disciplines, plus the value of individualism and differentiation, created a profession which was pluralistic in nature.

The idea that academic similarities outweigh differences to create a

pluralistic common culture was also espoused by F. G. Bailey (1977). He wrote about the university as a "common culture" which is composed of several tribes (as cited in Clark, 1987b):

Each tribe has a name and a territory, settles its own affairs, goes to war
with others, has a distinct language or at least a distinct dialect and a variety of symbolic ways of demonstrating its apartness from others.
Nevertheless, the whole set of tribes possess a common culture: their
ways of construing the world and the people who live in it are
sufficiently similar for them to be able to understand, more or less, each
other's culture and even, when necessary, to communicate with
members of other tribes. Universities possess a single culture which
directs interactions between the many distinct and often mutually
hostile groups. (p. 272)

Bailey viewed one of the tribes in the university's common culture as the academic/faculty profession. Even though faculty may have some differences, there were more similarities within the faculty ranks than with other 'tribes' within the university.

A single academic culture is based on the premise that faculty,

regardless of discipline, share some basic beliefs and symbols. These have been identified as academic freedom, individual autonomy within the profession, collegial governance, seeking truth through knowledge, the








34

importance of a community of scholars, the process of scientific inquiry, and service to society through the pursuit of knowledge and the transmission of knowledge and culture to the people (Clark, 1980; Morrill & Spees, 1982; Ruscio, 1987).

Many researchers have addressed common values held by all faculty, regardless of their academic discipline. Some of the values espoused by different researchers are similar: (a) the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and truth (Austin, 1990; Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Clark, 1987a, 1987b; Graff & Wilson, 1971; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a), (b) autonomy and academic freedom in their work (Austin, 1990; Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Clark, 1987a, 1987b; Graff & Wilson, 1971; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a), (c) collegiality for interaction and decision making within the institution (Austin, 1990; Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Clark, 1987b; Graff & Wilson, 1971; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a), and (d) commitment to intellectual integrity and fairness (Austin, 1990; Clark, 1987a).

These common beliefs, symbols, and values give credence to the view that there is one academic profession, no matter the academic discipline or institutional setting. It is said that faculty possess a world view which has similar beliefs about the nature and role of institutions of higher education and the faculty role within the institution (Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Freedman, 1979; Gusfield & Riesman, 1968; Ruscio, 1987). A common set of values and beliefs is one of the criteria for a common culture within an organization or group. Therefore, some academicians assert there is one academic/faculty culture within higher education.

Disciplinary Subcultures

The alternative perspective is that the differences among the academic disciplines are more significant than the similarities; hence, there is no one academic/faculty culture. Donald Light (1974) wrote,











The "academic profession" does not exist. In the world of scholarship,
the activities . . . center on each discipline. Thus, theoretically at least,
we have the academic professions, one for each discipline. Each
discipline has its own history, its own intellectual style, a distinct sense
of timing, different preferences for articles and books, and different
career lines. (p. 12)

Although faculty at most institutions of higher education teach, complete research, and provide service to their profession and society, they do so within the framework of their academic discipline. Each discipline is composed of people who have similar ways of thinking and possesses their own conduct codes, values, and distinctive intellectual tasks, and methods (Becher, 1981).

Tierney and Rhoads (1993) wrote that faculty are influenced by various sociological forces which produce different cultural groups to which each belongs: national culture, professional culture, institutional culture, and individual cultural differences, such as gender, race, and the like. Other researchers have taken a more narrow view that faculty are working in an environment of competing cultures: the culture of the academic profession, the culture of the discipline, the culture of the academy as an organization, and the culture of the institutional type (Austin, 1990). The competition among three of these cultures, the academic profession, the discipline, and the institutional type, determine the activities and the beliefs of the faculty member. The disciplinary culture is the primary source of faculty identity and expertise and is the first culture with which the prospective faculty member has contact; hence, there is a stronger bond with the disciplinary culture than with the institutional or academy cultures (Blau, 1973; Clark, 1984b; Morrill & Spees, 1982; Ruscio, 1987). This socialization process begins in graduate school when graduate students are assigned to faculty and try to emulate their professors and continues into their first faculty appointment (Bess, 1978; Freedman, 1979; Reisman, Gusfield, & Gamson, 1970). Clark (1987a)








36

wrote that "each discipline has a knowledge tradition--categories of thought-and related codes of conduct . . . there is in each field a way of life into which new members are gradually inducted" (p. 76).

These different languages, mores, and methods of learning and research within the disciplines create different subcultures within the academic profession (Austin, 1990; Becher, 1981; Bess, 1982; Clark, 1987a; Ruscio, 1987; Tierney & Rhoads, 1993). Becher conducted one of the foremost studies on academic discipline subcultures in 1981 when he interviewed faculty in four discipline groupings. His results show that the four general groupings (pure science, humanities, technologies and applied social sciences) approached the nature of knowledge quite differently and possessed different disciplinary cultures. The pure sciences group viewed knowledge as cumulative and were concerned with universal explanations and discoveries. Their disciplinary culture was competitive, politically well-organized, taskoriented, and valued large numbers of publications. The humanities group took as reiterative and holistic perspective of knowledge that examined particular qualities and resulted in developing understandings and interpretations. Their disciplinary culture was loosely structured, individualistic, person-oriented and did not particularly value a high publication rate. The technologies group approached knowledge from a purposive and pragmatic perspective that resulted in products and patents. Their disciplinary culture was entrepreneurial, role-oriented, and dominated by the values of the particular profession. The applied social sciences group approached knowledge from a functional and utilitarian perspective concerned with professional practices and protocols. Their disciplinary culture was uncertain of their status and looking outward toward consultancies, and was somewhat power-oriented.








37

Gaff and Wilson (1971) also emphasized the need to examine the cultural aspects of faculty's educational values, teaching orientations, and lifestyles. In their study they established four groupings for faculty (humanities, social science, natural science, and professional/applied) which were similar to Becher's. They found that significant differences do exist among the groups in relation to their values, teaching orientations, and lifestyles. Although a "broad general education" was favored by 61% of the faculty as the premier value and goal of higher education, it was only the primary choice among the social scientists. Humanities professors favored "self-knowledge," and the natural science and professional faculty favored "career preparation." The social science and humanities faculty also tended to be more permissive and have a more liberal orientation than faculty in the natural science and professional fields. One commonality was that all indicated their major source of satisfaction was teaching (88%), and 79% said family relationships ranked second. The third ranked choice differed according to grouping. Social science and natural science faculty chose scholarly pursuits (71%) as their next highest satisfaction, whereas professional faculty chose leisure time and recreational activities as their third choice of satisfaction. Humanity faculty were unique in that their second choice of satisfaction was literature, art, or music (86%) and family relationships came in third at 72%. This study showed some commonalties among the four groups of faculty, but it also pointed out the basic differences within the faculty that must be recognized in an institution.

Biglan (1973) proposed a three-dimensional model to differentiate among academic disciplines at various types of institutions. The "pureapplied" dimension identified the type of application to practical problems. The "hard-soft" dimension identified whether or not there was consensus on a










body of theory. The "life-nonlife" dimension identified whether or not there was research on living systems. This model was used by Creswell and Bean (1981) to study professional goals, tasks, and job satisfaction. They discovered that faculty groupings along these three dimensions did differ in their goals, tasks, and job satisfaction.

One of the other primary typologies of disciplinary culture was

developed by Burton Clark (1963, 1980). He proposed three dimensions of faculty orientation: (a) humanistic-scientific, which emphasized the commitment to individual interpretation and public verification of knowledge;

(b) pure-applied, which emphasized the use of knowledge; and (c) localcosmopolitan, which emphasized a commitment to the discipline and the institution. Clark then analyzed the interactions of these orientations to categorize faculty subgroups. The "teacher" showed a high identification with the institution and a high commitment to pure study. The "demonstrator" exhibited a high identification with the institution and with low commitment to pure study. The "scholar-researcher" exhibited low institutional identification and high commitment to pure study. The "consultant" exhibited low institutional identification and low commitment to pure study.

The disciplinary cultures are also affected by the type of institution in which they exist. The missions of the institutions have a tremendous effect on the type of faculty recruited, their responsibilities, the socialization process, and the performance standards (Clark, 1963; Ruscio, 1987). Austin (1990) wrote that faculty in similar kinds of institutions share similar experiences:

1. Research Universities--Faculty are closely aligned to their
discipline because of the emphasis on research.

2. State Colleges--The heavy teaching load prevents a strong
research affiliation, which can be a conflict for faculty.

3. Liberal Arts Colleges--The commitment is to teaching.











4. Community Colleges--The value is on individuals and the
teaching/learning process. (p. 67)

The type of institution affects faculty culture, but so does the size and complexity of the institution. Faculty at larger and more complex institutions often have more subcultures than those at smaller, homogeneous colleges (Clark, 1963, 1984b). These subcultures may be along disciplinary lines but may also be along other common aspects, such as gender, race, and status (Ruscio, 1987; Tierney & Rhoads, 1993).

Institutional affiliation may cause difficulty for faculty who have been socialized and trained for one role and end up in a position that emphasizes different responsibilities. For example, someone trained in graduate school to be a researcher who then obtains an appointment with a liberal arts college may experience conflict. Freedman's (1979) study with three institutions' faculty showed some of the conflict and characteristics of faculty at three types of institutions. The faculty at the liberal arts college had more women on faculty (50%), placed little emphasis on research/publication and professional activities, and were also less innovative in their teaching methods. They viewed themselves as developmentalists, emphasizing the development of their students. The state university faculty more highly valued research skills in selecting faculty colleagues (81%) but acknowledged that 54% of their time was spent teaching and only 10% spent on research. They were heavily involved in professional organizations and viewed themselves as "professionalistic." The research institution obviously placed more emphasis on research in the selection and evaluation of faculty. Only 9% said teaching was important for selection, and 28% said it was an important criteria for tenure and promotion. Faculty seemed isolated from colleagues








40

and the institution since they worked independently and often reported being dissatisfied with their role.

The importance of congruence between institutional type and faculty skills and priorities was also emphasized by Clark (1987a). He surmised that a research institution's "ideal academic" would be a nationally known researcher/scholar who could teach. The "ideal academic" for a comprehensive college would be someone who is an excellent teacher who also does research or stays current with the field. The community college "ideal academic" would be someone who can excite students to learn and is student oriented.

Related to institutional type is the influence administration has on faculty culture. In institutions which have a strong "management temperament," faculty tend to be less involved in decision making and may exhibit a weaker faculty culture. In institutions which have the history of a strong "academic temperament," faculty are extremely involved in the decision making and governance of the institution. These institutions tend to have a strong academic culture, particularly disciplinary cultures because the power may be held at the departmental level (Ruscio, 1987).

Although Clark attributed generalized characteristics to faculty at

specific types of institutions, he also emphasized the differences among the academic disciplines. As far back as 1963, Clark wrote:

It was around the disciplines that faculty subcultures increasingly
form. As the work and the points of view get more specialized, men in
different disciplines have fewer things in common, in their
background and their daily problems. They have less impulse to
interact with one another and less ability to do so.

The differences among the academic disciplines necessitate that researchers consider this diversity when studying the academic profession (Becher, 1987; Biglan, 1973). There is, however, a question as to whether or not disciplinary








41

dimensions truly meet the definition of a subculture. It could be proposed that each of these subgroups is really a grouping of similar personality types or ideal academic types. Each of these disciplinary groups can be further divided by smaller homogeneous groups, such as gender, race, and contractual status (Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a; Ruscio, 1987; Tierney & Rhoads, 1993). These specialty groups of women, people of color, and part-time faculty may or may not be considered a subculture, depending on the definition one uses for a subculture. They do indeed share common problems which often lead to shared interactions, but do they share a distinct identity, regular interaction, and common understandings apparent in subcultures? The same question could be posed for disciplinary groupings.

Student Affairs Subculture

Student affairs staff have been part of the administrative culture in

institutions of higher education since the 1870s when staff were appointed to serve as dean of men, replacing faculty in those positions. Their primary role was that of disciplinarian; however, that soon broadened to cover all aspects of the students' lives outside of the classroom. The student affairs profession has evolved to staff performing many of the student development and academic support functions in institutions of higher education. Student affairs personnel has also been central to the role of moral education in institutions of higher education (Sandeen, 1985).

Student Affairs Values

Although student affairs work is now an integral part of most

institutions of higher education, little research has been done on the cultural aspect of student affairs (Kuh & Whitt, 1988a; Love, Kuh, MacKay, & Hardy, 1993). The practical orientation of the student affairs profession also has resulted in little research on the profession's values, basic assumptions, or










philosophy. There are no generally accepted philosophy or values which have been accepted by student affairs personnel, although a number of researchers and authors have used three basic documents in the profession as guiding principles.

Stamatakos and Rogers (1984) compared the revised The Student

Personnel Point of View (Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education, 1949) and the Student Development Services in Post Secondary Education (Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education, 1975) to determine if there was a common philosophy in the student affairs profession. These two documents, which had been written by leaders in the profession, contained some commonalties in their views on the basic principles and values and the profession's identity. The two documents did not show any commonalties in describing the roles and functions of the profession, although that may be related to the 26 year time period between the origin of the two documents. The basic premises or principles of the profession which were mentioned in both documents included the ideas that

(a) the total development of the student was a paramount goal in higher education; (b) students must be active participants in their own growth and development; and (c) learning involves both the curricular and cocurricular experiences. Stamatakos and Rogers (1984) also found a few common values in the two documents. The only common value in the views on higher education was the importance of the development of the individual; however, both documents viewed the student from a holistic perspective, valuing individual differences and the development of a well-rounded individual. Regarding the learning process, both documents stressed involving the student as an active participant in in-class and out-of-class learning opportunities that involved both individual and group activities. The two documents stressed different










perspectives on a professional identity; however, there were a few commonalties. Stamatakos and Rogers stated that both documents said that student personnel staff were "administrators and educators who were committed to the holistic development of the student" (p. 409). The documents also stressed that staff needed to possess knowledge and show competence in the behavioral sciences, administrative skills, and instructional skills. The commonalties in these two documents presented a general view of some basic premises within the student affairs profession.

On the 50th anniversary of the original 1937 The Student Personnel Point of View, the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators convened a task force to reexamine the original document and identify the essential beliefs and purposes of the profession today. This 1987 committee was chaired by Arthur Sandeen and released A Perspective on Student Affairs. This document identified the following basic assumptions and beliefs that exemplify the student affairs profession:

1. The academic mission of the institution is preeminent.

2. Each student in unique.

3. Each person has worth and dignity.

4. Bigotry cannot be tolerated.

5. Feelings affect thinking and learning.

6. Student involvement enhances learning.

7. Personal circumstances affect learning.

8. Out-of-class environments affect learning.

9. A supportive and friendly community life helps students
learn.

10. The freedom to doubt and question must be guaranteed.

11. Effective citizenship should be taught.










12. Students are responsible for their own lives. (NASPA, 1987,
pp. 9-12)

These basic beliefs help to determine the roles student affairs staff play in institutions of higher education. Although institutions may be very different, student affairs personnel across the United States are involved in similar activities to support the mission of the institution and the students. The NASPA document (1987) identified 16 activities student affairs staff perform toward the institutional mission by serving as the liaison between students and the institution and providing services and programs to the institution. The document also identified 12 functions student affairs staff provide in programs and services to assist students in their development, their transition to the institution, and during their stay with the institution. Although this document is general in its list of activities within the institution, it shows the connection between the academic mission and student affairs. It also shows the balance that student affairs staff tries to reach in advocating for a sense of community while stressing individual rights and in encouraging independent thought while teaching interdependence.

Kuh, Shedd, and Whitt (1987) wrote about student affairs values from an organizational perspective. Among the prime values they saw was the importance of holistic student development, focusing on both the basic and higher order needs of students. They also perceived that student affairs staff valued collaboration over autonomy and stressed the importance of teamwork within a hierarchical structure. The fourth prime value was that of "doing" rather than thinking or reflecting. Student affairs personnel were seen as doers who worked together to meet the holistic needs of the students.

One study did compare the values of student affairs and academic affairs administrators. Dickerson-Gifford's 1990 dissertation showed that there were










common values between the two subcultures. The values they had in common at the top of both lists included (1) community, (2) intellectual orientation, and

(3) academic development. The student affairs administrators also highly ranked other values related to student development, such as individual personal development, intellect/aesthetic environment, and freedom.

In 1991, Winston and Saunders addressed the philosophy of student affairs. They determined there were no basic values within the profession; however, there were philosophical traditions within student affairs. Winston and Saunders identified four philosophical traditions within student affairs literature: holism (the student is a whole person), humanism (belief in human rationality, the values of self-awareness and self-understanding), pragmatism (making things work), and individualism (recognition of and appreciation for individual differences in backgrounds, abilities, interests, and goals).

Although various researchers in student personnel claim there are no common values within the profession, Young and Elkrink (1991) summarized eight essential values held by a high percentage of the student affairs personnel they surveyed. The values identified in their survey included altruism, equality, aesthetics, freedom, human dignity, justice, truth, and community. Young then used these eight values in analyzing documents within the student affairs profession to determine their historical significance in the field. In 1993, Young wrote that the writings supported the notion that there are three all-encompassing values within the student affairs profession, with subordinate values within the general categories. The first primary value, human dignity, was defined as the inherent worth and uniqueness of an individual. Young postulated that human dignity was dependent upon the subordinate values of freedom, truth, and altruism on the part of student affairs professionals. The second overall value in student










affairs was equality, both for individuals and for different abilities. This has evolved from a focus on individuals to an emphasis on groups in recent years. Young's third overall value in the profession was community, which included the empowerment of students through the campus community and their relationship to it. This included the value of justice among the community members and the sense of belonging and importance that a community can provide it's members.

The values espoused by student affairs professionals have changed as the nature of higher educational institutions have changed. As the student body has become more diverse, the profession has moved its focus from the individual to groups of individuals. Likewise, as society is becoming more complex and people are expressing a loss of community within the neighborhoods and cities, student affairs is talking more about the need for community within the institution.

Administrative Culture

The numbers of managers and administrators in institutions of higher education in the United States are growing as the size of the institutions grow. Administrators have also become more specialized in their responsibilities and their primary identity may be with professional organizations instead of the institution (Levinson, 1989; Scott, 1978). This is very similar to the trend in the academic division of an institution. Student affairs professionals are similarly becoming more specialized, especially on large campuses. There are professional organizations for subspecialties within student affairs, such as student judicial affairs, financial aid, career planning and placement, orientation, housing, student activities, campus recreation, and counseling. Staff may feel closer to the specialty area than with the student affairs










profession or the specific institution, causing different perspectives within student affairs staff in each institution (Love, et al., 1993).

Love (1990) performed a cultural study of a residence life department to determine some of the dominant characteristics of the organization's culture. He discovered that the culture was evident by examining individual and departmental transitions and conflicts. The conflicts within the department were not necessarily the result of different values or basic assumptions but more often related to a specific situation. The predominant values and assumptions he discovered in this particular residence administration department included: (a) commitment to student service, (b) staff autonomy,

(c) accessibility to students, (d) the acceptance of ideas from anyone in the organization, (e) change/innovation is good, and (f) avoidance of conflict among the staff (Love, 1990). The values of other departments, even at the same institution, may have different values because of personnel, purpose, and members.

Besides specialty areas, student affairs staff may have experienced

different cultures because of the institutional size. Student affairs divisions within small institutions may have a more cohesive organizational culture than student affairs divisions in large institutions. This result has been attributed to low financial support which prohibited much interaction with professional organizations or because small institutions employed more generalists who did a variety of student affairs functions (Goffigon, Lacey, Wright, & Kuh, 1986). The amount of contact student affairs staff have with students also impacted the culture of the division. Small institutions may have stressed frequent contact between students and staff, thereby creating an environment that was perceived as more nurturing and caring (McAleenan & Kuh, 1986).










Although size of the institution may have been a factor in the culture within student affairs, it has not played a role in the socialization of new student affairs professionals. Schein (1992) and Oblander (1990) said the socialization of new professionals into the organization could provide an important clue about the organization's culture. Oblander (1990) found that the socialization of new student affairs staff was independent of their graduate preparation program, the type of institution, and their job responsibilities. New staff began to form their expectations and beliefs about the institution during the recruitment and interview process; however, they had a difficult time identifying the rituals and meanings of everyday activities within the organization. It was also discovered that established members of the student affairs division did not view the socialization of new members as an intentional process (Orlander, 1990). Overall, the socialization on new professionals was a confusing and unintentional process for most of the new professionals.

Although the socialization process may be confusing, new professionals may be more aware of the organization's culture than long-term administrators. Billups' (1991) study of college administrators' perception of organizational culture revealed that those who had been a member of the organization for less than 5 years were more aware of the cultural attributes than administrators employed in the organization for 10 or more years. Billups found that college administrators valued "a sense of belonging, a sense of community, mutual respect and cooperation, affiliation across campus subgroups, and a sense of making a contribution to the organization" (p. 108). Although administrators viewed themselves as important to achieving the institution's mission, they acknowledged that administrators were incidental to the primary functions of teaching and research. Administrators saw










themselves as members of the culture but not creators of the institutions' culture. Because they felt isolated from interactions with faculty and students, most administrators sought affiliation and professional development from their professional organizations.

Administrators often viewed themselves, and were viewed by faculty, as second-class citizens in the institution (Bess, 1982; Plante, 1990). In response to this class structure administrators interacted with other administrators and created a subculture within the institution to give meaning and relevance to their work and day-to-day activities.

Researching Organizational Culture

Researchers from sociology, anthropology, organizational development, and psychology have studied organizational culture from a variety of perspectives. Some (Bergquist, 1992; Clark, 1970) have taken the global approach in looking at the entire organization, while others (Becher, 1981; Love, 1990) have stressed the importance of departments or subcultures in understanding the organization. Other researchers have emphasized the language used in the organization. Some examine sagas or legends in the organization as a means of analyzing the culture. Qualitative and quantitative methods of gathering data have been used by researchers. One of the difficulties in studying organizational culture has been that the basic beliefs and assumptions which comprise culture are not overtly stated in the organization. Manifestations of culture (artifacts, behaviors, espoused values) are observable, but these are based on basic assumptions and values which are common to the organization, but often unspoken (Sackmann, 1991; Schein, 1985).

Quantitative researchers, primarily from the disciplines of

organizational theory and management, have emphasized the importance of








50

quantifiable data that can be compared to different populations. The ability to assess and compare cross-sectional data, the replicability of the assessment, and a common frame of reference for analyzing the data are advantages for using questionnaires and surveys to measure organizational culture (Sackmann, 1991). This method works well when analyzing a particular aspect of culture. Chaffee and Tierney (1988) utilized the Institutional Performance Survey in examining institutional cultures. Cooke and Lafferty (1987) developed the Organizational Culture Inventory to measure normative behavior in organizations. This inventory has been used by numerous companies and consultants in examining the norms and expectations associated with culture. Sashkin (1990) developed the Organizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire which measures the beliefs held by members of the organization. Other researchers have used institutional climate or goals questionnaires to measure aspects of organizational culture. DickersonGifford (1990) used the Institutional Goals Inventory to measure what educational administrators thought were the institutional values in their institution.

The negative side of using quantitative methods is that the instrument's language or concepts may not be congruent with that of the organization. Most of the instruments were developed for business corporations and may not be transferable to community agencies, educational institutions, and volunteer organizations. The instruments are also narrow in their focus, by necessity, and may not truly measure culture but a manifestation of culture.

Qualitative research methods have been the predominant means of studying organizational culture. It has been used by most sociologists and anthropologists; however, some organizational development specialists also have used qualitative methods. The methods for data collection can include










individual interviews, group interviews, document analysis, artifact collection, observations, analysis of rites and rituals, and analysis of sagas and legends.

Although the methods of qualitative research vary, there are eight common principles within this form of research (Whitt, 1991).

1. The first principle involves the objective of "understanding" the phenomena being studied rather than trying to generalize or identify cause and effect as in quantitative research.

2. Qualitative research attempts to understand the object of the study through the participants' perspective.

3. The third principle involves "fieldwork" where the researcher goes to the natural setting and immerses him/herself in the environment of the participant.

4. Qualitative research takes a holistic perspective in viewing the phenomena as a whole system rather than breaking it into parts as in quantitative research.

5. Another principle places importance on understanding the unique contextual setting of the object of study. This context sensitivity prevents generalizing from one setting to another.

6. The sixth important principle is the use of inductive rather than

deductive reasoning in analyzing the data. Inductive data analysis allows the researcher to utilize data from all areas before drawing conclusions.

7. Another importance aspect of qualitative methodology is the element of a human researcher who uses judgment, intuition, and knowledge in drawing, collecting, and analyzing information.








52

8. The last principle is the acknowledgment that qualitative research is value-laden rather than value-free. The values of the researcher are part of the process and although they can be offset, they can not be eradicated.

The basic axioms of naturalistic inquiry influence how the research of the context being studied is carried out (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The first belief is that realities found in naturalistic research are multiple and holistic in nature and constructed by the situation. Another axiom is that the knower (individual involved in the situation) and the known are inseparable and interactive. Naturalistic research describes the particular time and setting and cannot be generalized to the larger society. Another basic belief is that it is difficult to distinguish cause and effect because all entities are mutually and simultaneously shaping the situation. The last axiom is that values of the researcher and the organization and/or subjects are interwoven within the study and can not be removed.

The study of culture, in societies and organizations, has predominantly been qualitative in nature because of the fluid and contextual nature of culture. Geertz (1973) described the analysis of culture as a search for meaning through interpretation of events, language, and practices. Pettigrew (1979) also suggested that interpretation was the key to understanding culture. He suggested that the concepts with which a researcher had to become knowledgeable included symbols, language, ideology, myths, rituals, and beliefs. Interpretation lends itself to asking questions, such as "why?" or "how?", which are particularly suited to qualitative research (Merriam, 1988).

Qualitative or ethnographic methodologies stress the importance of thick description of the organization or event, from which meaning can be interpreted. It is suggested that qualitative methods be triangulated to add credibility to the trustworthiness of the process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Schein,








53

1992; Tierney, 1988; Van Maanen, 1979). Triangulation involves using various types of data collection and comparing results. It is also suggested that data collection and data analysis occur simultaneously so that a higher degree of understanding can happen in a shorter data collection period.
















CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains the research methodology used in this study. The research questions and research sample of this study are then described. In conclusion, the data collection methods utilized in this study are explained, followed by the methodology used for data analysis.

Design of the Study

The study used the theoretical construct of organizational culture to

explain how academic affairs and student affairs divisions operate. This study utilized both qualitative and quantitative research methods to assess and compare the organizational culture of academic affairs and student affairs divisions at three institutions of higher education within the southeastern United States. The utilization of both research methods provided a cross reference for the data collected and broadened the triangulation which was recommended as a means of insuring trustworthiness. The research methods utilized in this study have been used in consultations with corporations and public school systems, but this was the first time with subcultures in higher education.

Research Questions

The study addressed the issue of organizational culture within student affairs and academic affairs divisions from an inductive data analysis perspective. Since so little was known about organizational culture in academic affairs administration and student affairs administration, the research questions identified areas in which to gather information. The










following research questions served as guides to structure the collection of data and the analysis of that data.

1. What are the shared assumptions, values, and beliefs among

administrators in student affairs divisions and in academic affairs divisions on each campus?

2. What are the similarities and differences between the organizational culture of academic affairs administrators and the organizational culture of student affairs administrators on each campus?

3. What are the similarities and differences among the three institutions' student affairs administrative subculture?

4. What are the similarities and differences among the three institutions' academic affairs administrative subculture?

5. Is there a common organizational culture among student affairs

administrative divisions, even though they may be situated in different types of institutions?

6. Is there a common organizational culture among academic affairs administrative divisions, even though they may be situated in different types of institutions?

Population

Three institutions of higher education in the southeast were selected for participation in this study. Only institutions which awarded a baccalaureate degree or higher degree were selected so there would be commonalty in the institutional structure and mission. The three institutions represented a statesupported research institution, a state-supported urban commuter institution, and a small private undergraduate residential college. The administrators involved in the study included full-time professional staff who were within










two administrative levels of the vice president or dean in the institution's academic affairs and student affairs divisions.

Alpha College in Florida was a small private institution which

emphasized a liberal arts undergraduate education, although it did have a few master's degree programs. The college served a student population of 3,500 students, with 77% of the students living on-campus. The student affairs division was composed of 16 full-time professional staff in 6 departments under the Dean of Students authority. The Dean of the Faculty at Alpha College was responsible for the primary academic functions in the undergraduate curriculum and was equivalent to the Dean of Student Affairs. The Dean of the Faculty was responsible for 23 academic departments, 10 academic programs, 5 academic support departments, and an assistant dean. Both the Dean of Faculty and the Dean of Student Affairs reported to the Academic Vice President and Provost in the institution's organizational structure.

Gamma University was the oldest state institution in the state and was located in its capitol city. The university had 26,700 enrolled students, with approximately 10,000 of those being graduate students. It housed 45% of the student population in on-campus housing, and the majority of other students lived in reasonable proximity to the campus. Gamma University was considered a comprehensive university, offering 80 undergraduate and 30 graduate majors. The academic affairs division included 6 professional staff in the vice president/provost office, 15 deans and associate deans, 16 directors of academic support departments, and approximately 50 academic department chairs. The student affairs division was composed of 4 professional staff in the vice president's office, 4 directors with supervisory and divisional responsibilities, and 20 department heads.










The third institution was Beta State University, located in a large

metropolitan area in a southeastern state. Beta State University was primarily a commuter institution serving a culturally diverse metropolitan area. Although the institution had branch campuses, this study only explored the organizational culture on the main campus, which enrolled 16,000 students. Beta State University offered both undergraduate and graduate degrees although the large majority of the students were enrolled in an undergraduate program. The academic affairs division was composed of a provost, 2 associate vice-presidents, and a vice president for the primary campus, all of whom provided leadership to 6 support departments and 9 academic colleges. The student affairs division was led by the vice president and 2 deans. The division consisted of 14 administrative departments. Research Procedures

In April, 1995, telephone calls were made to the vice presidents for student affairs at two state institutions and two private institutions in the southeastern United States. This was the first attempt to access institutions for this study. The vice president at the large private institution and the commuter state institution refused the request. Similar requests were extended sequentially to the vice president at three state commuter institutions before a vice president for student affairs granted permission. The vice president for student affairs at the large residential research institution (Gamma University), the medium size state commuter institution (Beta State University) and the private institution (Alpha College) then made the initial contact with the provost to inform him of the potential research project. In June and July, 1995, letters were sent to the provost explaining the purpose of the research. A follow-up telephone conversation with the provost explained the project, details of the research, and the support that would be necessary from the










institution. By the beginning of August, 1995, the vice presidents of student affairs and academic affairs at each of the three institutions had agreed to participate in the research. Each of vice presidents assigned a liaison person from within the division to work with the researcher.

In August, 1995 the researcher contacted each liaison with specific

requests for information. The divisional liaison provided the researcher with a list of all full-time administrators who were within two levels of the divisional vice president. This list included each staff member's name, campus address, title, gender, race, and years of service at the institution. General information about the divisions, such as organizational charts, mission statements, goals, and rules and procedure manuals were also requested.

In September, 1995, each of the administrators within two reporting

levels of the vice president for student affairs and the provost/vice president for academic affairs were sent a cover letter introducing the study, an Organizational Culture s Asessmnl Questionnaire (_Q) to complete, and a return-addressed stamped envelope. A total of 246 questionnaires were mailed to administrators. Individuals who did not return the questionnaire by October were sent a reminder postcard.

Data collection also involved spending 5 days on each campus to

interview administrators within each division. The researcher was at Gamma University from October 30, 1995, through November 3, 1995, to interview administrators. The visit to Alpha College was from November 13 through November 17, 1995. Interviews were conducted at Beta State University from December 4 though December 8, 1995. Seven to nine individuals within the academic affairs division and student affairs division were interviewed regarding their perceptions of the administrative culture within their division. Individuals were selected in consultation with the liaison in each










division. Whenever possible, individuals were selected to represent different administrative levels and departments within the division, each gender, and various ethnic groups. In addition to these one-on-one interviews, a group of administrators who had been in the division less than 6 years were asked to participate in a group discussion about cultural artifacts found in their division. Two to five administrators from each division participated in separate 90- to 120-minute group discussions about the culture they discovered upon their entrance to the academic affairs division or student affairs division within the institution.

Prior to the L being distributed to the administrators on the three campuses, the questionnaire was piloted to colleagues in student affairs and academic affairs to ensure it was understandable. The interview format was also piloted to administrators in each division. These pilot interviews enabled appropriate changes in the interview format to gather clearer data on the elements of organizational culture being explored: values, normative behavior, managing change, teamwork and relationships within the organization, customer orientation, goal achievement, and cultural strength. Quantitative Research Methodology

The Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (OC60) was

designed to measure the way people within the organization think and act (Sashkin, 1990). The theoretical constructs of the questionnaire were based on the sociological work of Talcott Parsons who studied the structures of organizations in modern societies. One of Parsons' (1960) primary works was Structure and Process in Modern Societies in which he focused on the characteristics and functions of modern organizations in the United States. He theorized that organizations are social systems which have specific functions










that guide its purpose, functions, and relations with the larger society. Parsons stated that all organizations are subunits within the broader societal structure that contribute to the functioning of society or the organization will not maintain itself. Parsons described an organization's culture as having four characteristics or functions which are always present. The primary characteristic is a system of values which defines the primary functions of the organization. The three primary functions which are defined by the values include the ability of the organization to attain the established goals, the ability to adapt to a given situation, and the integration of the system to the rest of society. The values of the organization are the primary reference point from which to examine an organization. The organizational values also define their relationship to the comprehensive social system and provide guidance for the other organizational functions (Parsons, 1960). The function of attaining the organization's goals is carried out by institutionalized procedures which are designed to enable the organization to reach the prescribed goals. The function of adaptation is related to the organization's ability to mobilize its resources and adjust to changes in the goals. The integration function pertains to the organization's patterns of relationships and commitment within the organization and to the larger society (Parsons, 1960).

Sashkin (1990) used the social organization theory espoused by Parsons as the basis for his Organizational CultureAssessmen Questionnaire. He expanded on the basic four characteristics and functions and added a fifth function, customer orientation. The five cultural element subscores measured by the LXQ are explained below:

1. Managing Change--This first scale is equivalent to Parson's adaptation function and assesses the degree to which members of the










organization see the organization as effective in adapting to and managing change.

2. Achieving Goals--The second scale, Achieving Goals, measures how effective the organization is in achieving goals, the extent to which there are shared goals, and the degree to which these goals support improvement.

3. Coordinated Teamwork--Scale III, pertains to Parson's integration function since it assesses the extent to which the organization is effective in coordinating the work of individuals and groups and the extent to which collaboration is present.

4. Customer Orientation--This scale assesses the extent to which

organizational activities are directed toward identifying and meeting the needs and goals of clients and customers

5. Cultural Strength--Scale V relates to Parson's values characteristic. This scale assesses the strength of the organization's culture by asking respondents to report on the extent to which people agree on values.

The QQW has scores for each of the five cultural element scales. The scores are based on six questions in each category, including at least one reverse question in each category. The questionnaire uses a 5-point Likert scale. For each of the 30 statements the respondent marks (5) completely true, (4) mostly true, (3) partly true, (2) slightly true, and (1) not true. The range for each subscore can be from 6 to 30 points. Although the normative samples on the ( are relatively small, Sashkin has established ranges for each of the cultural elements. Table I shows five ranges for each of the cultural elements, although they are not normed on higher education institutions. Sashkin (1990) cautioned against putting too much emphasis on the numbers but urged researchers to use the scoring on the cultural elements as an indication of how the organization is functioning rather than assessing











it's strength in a particular cultural element. He emphasized more research would be needed to have an in-depth cultural assessment of an organization.


Table 1

OCAO Normative Ranges


for the Cultural Element Subscores


Managing Achieving Coordinated Customer Cultural Range Change Goals Teamwork Orientation Strength


very high 30 28-30 28-30 25-30 26-30 high 26-29 23-27 24-27 21-24 22-25 average 19-25 16-22 18-23 15-20 17-21 low 15-18 11-15 14-17 11-14 13-16 very low 6-14 6-10 6-13 6-10 6-12




Sashkin developed the Q in 1990 and has revised the questionnaire to the 1993 current form. The instrument has been used in various types of organizations by educational researchers and organizational consultants. Sashkin, Rosenbach, and Mueller (1994) used the questionnaire to explore the relationship between leadership, organizational culture, and performance in an Australian banking corporation. Endeman (1993) used a version of it to assess culture in relation to superintendent's leadership styles. Principals and their school cultures was the focus of a study by Sashkin and Sashkin (1993) in which a version of the questionnaire was utilized, in conjunction with other research instruments. Giese (1995) used the (MW in his study of culture and shared governance in California community colleges. He modified the


for the Cultural Element Subscores










questionnaire's statements to reflect higher education institutions, although the essence of the statements did not change.

Giese's (1995) pilot study of the modified instrument showed a reliability correlation coefficient of .89, using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation. This showed a strong reliability index for the questionnaire. Although the

-XQQ has been used in a number of reputable studies, there were no published data on the validity of the instrument. This researcher, therefore, sent the Giese modified version of the ICa to six professionals in higher education so they could determine whether or not the instrument measured what it purported to measure. This jury of professionals were knowledgeable about organizational culture and well qualified to attest to the validity of the questions. Three were administrators familiar with the construct of organizational culture and three were researchers who were familiar with the construct and questionnaire construction.

Results from the jury of six professionals showed that the statements for the respective cultural elements on the Guise version of the (MW were perceived to accurately reflect those elements. The reviewers were asked to rate the validity of the statements in each cultural element using a 5-point scale: 5 = completely true, 4 = mostly true, 3 = partly true, 2 = slightly true, and

1 = not true. The average jury rating of the statements for each cultural element was as follow:

1. Managing Change = 4.5

2. Achieving Goals = 4.3

3. Coordinating Teamwork = 4.6

4. Customer Orientation = 4.3

5. Cultural Strength = 4.3








64

Some of the reviewers did suggest some minor wording changes to a few of the statements. However, since there was no consensus on these proposed changes, it was decided to use the Guise version of the Q=& . This version of the questionnaire had been used in the higher education environment and pertained directly to administrators. Demographic information was added to the questionnaire so respondents could be placed into categories. The respondents were asked to indicate the following information:

1. Institution type (private, public)

2. Division (academic affairs, student affairs)

3. Position (vice president, dean, department chair/director, mid-level administrator)

4. Department or college of employment

5. Number of administrative levels removed from the vice president/dean of the division (none, one, two, three)

6. Gender (female, male)

7. Race (Asian-Pacific Islander, Black, Caucasian, Hispanic/Latino, Native-American, other)

8. Number of years with this institution

9. Number of years as a professional in higher education

Full-time professional administrators in academic affairs and student

affairs divisions at each of the three institutions were identified through a list from each division. Information on the list included name, position, address, age, race, gender, and number of years with the institution. Administrators who were within two administrative levels of the vice president were mailed the Guise modified Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire ) to complete and return to the researcher. A total of 246 questionnaires were mailed to administrators at the three institutions. A total of 182 useable










questionnaires were returned, for an overall return rate of 74%. The distribution of surveys sent out and returned are listed in the Table 2.



Table 2

Distribution and Return Rate of OCAO Survey


Institution


Academic Affairs


Student Affairs


Sent Returned Percent Sent Returned


Percent


Alpha College 38 25 66 17 14 82 Beta State Univ. 20 14 70 26 17 65 Gamma Univ. 121 72 60 23 21 91


Total 179 111 62 66 52 79


Oualitative Research Methodology


The qualitative research methods used included individual and group interviews with professional staff in the divisions of academic affairs and student affairs to obtain participants' views on the organization's underlying values, assumptions, and normative behavior. Information gleaned from observations obtained while on campus for the interviews are also included in the data collection. An analysis of institutional documents which pertain to the mission, structure, and operation of each of these divisions also was conducted.

The methodology to be used in the interviews and data collection is

based on Edgar Schein's model of investigation (Schein, 1992). Institutional










documents which described the mission, goals, structure, and operation were requested from the vice president in each division. These documents were examined prior to campus visits so they had a basic understanding of the mission, goals, structure and procedures of each division before conducting interviews.

The divisional liaison was consulted by the researcher in identifying the administrators to interview so interviews covered a wide range of demographic information, administrative responsibilities, and perspectives. Individuals selected to be interviewed comprised a purposeful sample designed to obtain as much information as possible about the respective division and its culture. Lincoln and Guba (1985) stated that purposeful sampling was the primary methodology used in naturalistic or ethnographic research. The formal and informal leader was interviewed, along with administrators who were new to the division and those who had been with the division for numerous years. There was an attempt to interview administrators who represented various levels of authority, gender, ethnicity, and age.

The individual interviews were semi-structured and open in nature so that participants could tell stories about the evolution and operation of the organization. Asking interviewees to explain critical incidents and how they were handled informed the researcher of the cultural assumptions and values operating in the organization (Schein, 1992). The researcher also asked clarifying questions to reach some conclusions about the underlying assumptions which guided the culture. The basic cultural elements explored in the interviews were congruent with those covered in Sashkin's CQ: Managing Change, Achieving Goals, Coordinated Teamwork, Customer, Orientation, and Cultural Strength. The interview format followed the








67

methodology outlined by Edgar Schein (1992) while incorporating the cultural elements of the -CL6Q.

The primary questions which were used in individual interviews included the following:

1. Please tell me a little about yourself as an administrator and how you came to be in the position you currently hold.

2. Please describe the role and mission the academic affairs/student affairs division has in the institution. (strength, goal attainment, customer orientation)

3. Describe the relationship the academic affairs/student affairs division has to the other parts of the institution. (attitude, relationships, influence)

4. Describe a couple of critical incidents within the division that have occurred within the past 5 years. (what, who, when, how, why)

5. Describe what is it like to be a member of the division. (status,

relationships, expectations, cohesiveness, rewards/punishments, ideology)

6. How would you describe communication within the division?

7. How does the division cope with change?

8. How do new members in the division become socialized? Describe any traditions within the division.

9. What do you think are the values of the division?

10. How would you describe the culture in the division?

The number of administrators in each division varied according to the size of the division and those who were thought to be representative of different perspectives. The liaison in each division was consulted to insure that important leaders were interviewed. Ten academic administrators and eight student affairs administrators participated in separate individual interviews at










Gamma University. At Alpha College eight academic administrators and six student affairs administrators participated in individual interviews. Because of a faculty meeting on proposing a new administrative structure at Beta State University, only seven academic administrators participated in the interviews, although nine student affairs administrators participated. The researcher did attend the deans council and the campus-wide faculty meeting at Beta State University to observe the interaction.

Schein (1992) stated that relatively new employees in the division could be helpful in identifying aspects of the behavior which are unique to that organization. Therefore, a group discussion was conducted with administrators from each division who had been with the division less than 6 years. Six to eight administrators received letters asking them to participate in a group discussion to explore cultural artifacts, values, and assumptions within their division of academic affairs or student affairs. A group discussion was conducted with the individuals who agreed to participate. Three academic administrators and three student affairs administrators participated in separate group discussions at Gamma University. At Alpha College four academic administrators and four student affairs administrators participated in the discussions. Because of a faculty meeting at Beta State University only two academic administrators participated in the discussion, although four student affairs administrators participated in their discussion. Administrators at the vice-president level were not invited to these discussions so that participants could feel free to speak their mind. The group discussion followed the following format:

1. The researcher introduced the concept of culture and the ways culture manifests itself through artifacts, values, and basic assumptions.










2. The group participants were asked to identify cultural artifacts within the organization. "What is going on in the organization?" (Schein, 1992, p. 151)

3. The group was asked to explain the organizational values that were connected to the artifacts. "Why are you doing what you are doing?" (Schein, 1992, p. 151)

4. The group was asked to examine inconsistencies in artifacts and espoused values to determine if there were any underlying shared assumptions.

5. The group was asked to reach a consensus on the shared assumptions and the implications these assumptions had on the organization. (Schein, 1992).

Information gathered through the individual and group interviews was collected and analyzed using methodology proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Schein (1992). The question of reliability, internal validity, external validity, and objectivity in qualitative research has been answered by researchers with the concept of trustworthiness. Lincoln and Guba (1985) have described trustworthiness as responding to the following questions:

"How can an inquirer persuade his or her audiences (including self) that the findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to, worth
taking account of? What arguments can be mounted, what criteria
invoked, what questions asked, that would be persuasive on this issue?"
(p. 290)

Lincoln and Guba (1985) have suggested there are four criteria that should be met by naturalistic or ethnographic research. These criteria include credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.

Credibility refers to conducting the study in such a way to insure that the findings adequately represent the reality of the participants. Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommended that credibility could be enhanced if the researcher










had prolonged engagement with the subjects and the setting so a variety of observations and interactions can be included in the data collection. They also recommended that the researcher use triangulation as a method to check the data for accuracy. Triangulation involves comparing the results of various research methods, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis, to verify the results. The third method of increasing credibility involves using peers to debrief during the data collection and analysis phases so the researcher can maintain perspective on the study. Negative case analysis, the continual process of refining the hypothesis as data are analyzed, is another method of increasing credibility. Continual revision of the hypothesis in light of new data results in no exceptions to the hypothesis, thereby increasing the credibility of the research. The fifth method of increasing credibility, referential adequacy, recommends the researcher archive data and not use the data in the analysis. This unused data would be used later to verify the conclusions reached using the other data. The sixth recommendation to increase credibility is viewed as the most crucial. Member checks is the process of sharing the "data, analytical categories, interpretations, and conclusions with members of the stakeholder groups from which the data were originally collected" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 314).

The credibility of this study was enhanced through some of the methods described above. The researcher spent 5 days on each campus and interviewed a variety of administrators within each division. The researcher utilized various research methodology to triangulate the results. Individual interviews, group interviews, document analysis, and the -XEAQ questionnaire were all used in data collection. The researcher also utilized peers to debrief during the data collection and analysis stages. These peers were professionals in student affairs and academic affairs and provided feedback to the










researcher as she was analyzing the data. These steps helped increase the credibility of the study.

The second criterion for increasing the trustworthiness of the study is transferability, which equates to external validity in quantitative studies. Transferability of the results to other settings is not an outcome of ethnographic research; however, Lincoln and Guba (1985) wrote that detailed description of the collected data may enable others to make transferable judgments to similar settings. This researcher provided detailed description of the information collected from individual interviews, group interviews, and data analysis to enable others to obtain an extensive picture of the organization.

Dependability is the third criterion advanced by Lincoln and Guba

(1985) as a means of increasing trustworthiness. Dependability relates to the consistency, predictability, and stability in the study. Emphasis on credible research methods will result in sufficient dependability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 299).

The fourth criterion for trustworthiness is confirmability, which is equivalent to objectivity in quantitative research. Confirmability is determined by whether the quality of the data is sufficient to be confirmable. Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommended that confirmability could be shown by using an auditor to examine the processes and products of the study. This researcher developed an audit trail consisting of (a) raw data (tape recordings, written field notes, and documents);, (b) data reduction and analysis products (transcribed interviews, summaries from interviews), (c) data reconstruction and synthesis products (category structures and summaries, preliminary findings), and (d) materials relating to intentions and dispositions (dissertation proposal and communication with institutions).














DaaAnalyis

Quantitative Data Analysis

Analysis of the Q resulted in 5 subscores for each administrator who returned the questionnaire. Each of the 5 subscores ranged from 6 to 30. Low scores indicated that members of the division perceived it as functioning less than desirable in that cultural element. The 5 subscores were Managing Change, Achieving Goals, Coordinated Teamwork, Customer Orientation, and Cultural Strength. Sashkin (1990) stated that the Q was designed to be analyzed by group scores rather than individual scores because culture is more accurately described as a group perception rather than an individual perception. Sashkin also has cautioned researchers not to put too much emphasis on what the scores means. He suggested that researchers look for trends in the group results to provide a direction of what might be done to improve the organization's culture. Sashkin has developed some normative score ranges based on the limited samples he has collected. Those ranges were listed in Table 2, earlier in this chapter.

Questionnaires from each division within each institution were

analyzed as a group. A mean and standard deviation for each subscore was calculated. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze each of the subscores at each respective institution between academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators. An ANOVA also was used to compare each subscore among the three institutions' academic affairs administrators. Similarly, an ANOVA was used to compare each subscore among the three institutions student affairs administrators. A "p value" of .05 was used to determine significance in the ANOVA comparisons. If








73

there was significance at the .05 level, the Tukey Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variability was run to assess where the significant differences occurred.

The analysis of the CL6Q was used to partially answer research questions 2, 3, and 4. The divisional subscores within each institution were compared to identify similarities and differences between the academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators on each campus (question 2). Information gained in the questionnaire allowed the comparison of academic affairs administrators on the three campuses (question 3). An analysis of the subscores also enabled a comparison of student affairs administrators across the three campuses (question 4). Information gained from the individual interviews and group discussions were used in answering each research question; however, the quantitative data more readily allowed for comparisons among the groups.

Qualitative Data Analysis

The analysis of qualitative data does not follow the same procedure as analysis of quantitative data. Qualitative data analysis is inductive in nature, where the researcher begins with the data, which are then sorted and categorized. Interpretation of the categories and themes then generates propositions or hypothesis, from which constructs can be derived (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Data analysis of the documents and interviews is a continual process for the researcher that begins in the initial phases of data collection and extends through the final writing of the case study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988).

As the researcher collected data there was continual refinement of the questions and focus of the interviews. Data gained in previous research were used to make these modifications. As the researcher analyzed the documents, transcripts, and field notes of the interviews, the data were reduced to units of











information. Lincoln and Guba (1985) wrote that a unit should have two characteristics:

First, it should be heuristic, that aimed at some understanding or some
action that the inquirer needs to have or to take. Second, it must be the smallest piece of information about something than can stand by itself,
that is, it must be interpretable in the absence of any additional
information other than a broad understanding on the context in which
the inquiry is carried out. (p. 345)

Units from this study were coded according to the individual, division, institution, and page number in the interview transcripts for auditing purposes. Units similar in nature were then placed in categories. A unit of information may have been placed in more than one category.

Categories contain units of information that relate to the same content. These categories are fluid in nature as they are being identified by sorting through the units. Glaser and Strauss (1967) described categories as "concepts indicated by the data (and not the data itself). . . . In short, conceptual categories and properties have a life apart from the evidence that gave rise to them" (p. 36). Categories are developed by constantly comparing the content of each category.

This researcher developed categories through reading the transcripts of the individual interviews and selecting relevant units of information. These units of information were then placed in categories. Some of the categories were predetermined by the desire to frame the examination of culture to the five cultural elements in Sashkin's Q (Managing Change, Achieving Goals, Coordinating Teamwork, Customer Orientation, and Cultural Strength). Other categories, such as decision making, communication, traditions, and socialization, were subcategories within these broader categories. After reading through each individual's interview transcript, that administrator's relevant units of information were recorded in the










appropriate categories on a summary page. After analyzing each administrators interview in the same manner, each administrator's summary pages for each division within each institution were compared for similarities and differences. Units of information which were mentioned by at least onethird of the administrators interviewed in that division were viewed as representative of the division and placed in the divisional summary for the respective category. This divisional summary contained common cultural themes and patterns throughout each division in each institution.

These patterns of normative behaviors, beliefs, and values were used to help answer research question 1, which identifies the cultural attributes in each division within each institution.

The cultural values, assumptions, and normative behaviors in the academic affairs and student affairs divisions within each institution, as examined within the context of the five cultural elements, were then compared. Similarities and differences were identified and expounded upon. The information gained through qualitative interviews was combined with the quantitative data to answer the second research question, which asked for a comparison of the culture in the two divisions on each campus.

The cultural values, assumptions, and normative behaviors in student affairs divisions among the three institutions, as examined within the context of the five cultural elements, were then compared. Both qualitative and quantitative data were used for this comparison in order to answer research question 3. The outcome of this comparison also allowed conclusions to be drawn as to whether student affairs organizational culture was professionally or institutionally based (research question 5).

The cultural values, assumptions, and normative behaviors in academic affairs divisions among the three institutions, as examined within the context










of the five cultural elements, were then compared. Both qualitative and quantitative data were used for this comparison in order to answer research question 4. The comparison also allowed conclusions to be drawn as to whether organizational culture was professionally or institutionally based (research question 6).

Summary

Chapter 3 explained the methodology used to examine the administrative culture within the academic affairs division and within the student affairs division in three institutions of higher education. The study explored organizational culture among administrators within two levels of the vice president or dean for the division. Qualitative interviews with new and more established administrators provided information about normative behavior, beliefs, and values. The qualitative data were analyzed by compiling similar units of information into categories, as espoused by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Quantitative data from the distribution of the Q also provided information about administrators' perception of how the division Managed Change, Achieved Goals, Coordinated Teamwork, its Customer Orientation, and its Cultural Strength. The results of the QC6Q were analyzed through means and standard deviations and by comparing the subscores using an ANOVA and the Tukey Studentized Range Test for variability. The results of the quantitative and qualitative data were combined to answer the six research questions.
















CHAPTER 4
RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Overview of Chapter

This chapter first presents an overview of how the research was

conducted. Each of the six research questions are then answered. The results from both the qualitative and quantitative data collected during the study are used to answer the research questions.

Synopsis of Research Process

In April, 1995, telephone calls were made to the vice presidents for student affairs at two state institutions and two private institutions in the southeastern United States. This was the first attempt to gain access to institutions for this study. The vice president at the large private institution and the commuter state institution refused the request. Similar requests were extended sequentially to the vice president at three state commuter institutions before a vice president for student affairs granted permission. The vice president for student affairs at the large residential research institution (Gamma University), the medium-sized state commuter institution (Beta State University), and the private institution (Alpha College) then made the initial contact with the provost to inform him of the potential research project. In June and July, 1995, letters were sent to the provost explaining the purpose of the research. A follow-up telephone conversation with the provost explained the project, details of the research, and the support that would be necessary from the institution. By the beginning of August, 1995, the vice presidents of student affairs and academic affairs at each of the three institutions had











agreed to participate in the research. Each of vice presidents assigned a liaison from within the division to coordinate efforts with the researcher.

In August, 1995, the researcher contacted each liaison with specific

requests for information. The divisional liaison provided the researcher with a list of all full-time administrators who were within two levels of the divisional vice president. This list included each staff member's name, campus address, title, gender, race, and years of service at the institution. General information about the divisions such as organizational charts, mission statements, goals, and rules and procedure manuals were also requested.

In September, 1995, each of the administrators within two reporting

levels of the vice president for student affairs and the provost/vice president for academic affairs were sent a cover letter introducing the study, an Organizational CultureAsiessment dQuestionnaire (QMd) to complete, and a return-addressed stamped envelope. A total of 246 questionnaires were mailed to administrators. Individuals who did not return the questionnaire by October were sent a reminder postcard.

Data collection also involved spending 5 days on each campus to

interview administrators within each division. The researcher was at Gamma University from October 30, 1995, through November 3, 1995, to interview administrators. The visit to Alpha College was from November 13 through November 17, 1995. Interviews were conducted at Beta State University from December 4 though December 8, 1995. Seven to nine individuals within the academic affairs division and the student affairs division were interviewed regarding their perceptions of the administrative culture within their division. Individuals were selected in consultation with the liaison in each division. Whenever possible, individuals were selected to represent different administrative levels and departments within the division, each gender, and








79

various ethnic groups. In addition to these one-on-one interviews, a group of administrators who had been at the institution less than 6 years were asked to participate in a group discussion about cultural artifacts found in their respective division. Two to five administrators from each division participated in a 90- to 120-minute group discussion about the culture they discovered upon their entrance to the academic affairs division or student affairs division within the institution.

Information gathered from the individual and group interviews within the academic affairs and student affairs divisions in each institution was analyzed according to the process described in Chapter 3. The general rate of return for the Oranizational Culture, A .x.Jl Questionnaire was shown in Table 3 in Chapter 3. The analysis of those results and the interviews are combined later in this chapter to answer the six research questions.

Results of Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire

A total of 246 questionnaires were mailed to administrators at the three institutions. A total of 182 useable questionnaires were returned, for an overall return rate of 74%. The distribution of surveys sent out and returned are listed in Table 3 on page 65 of this document.

The QL I survey does not specify the particular qualities within the

culture, rather, it measures the perception of normative behavior within the organization. This perception by members of the organization can lead one to assess the strength of the division's culture. A description of the organizational cultural qualities measured in the instrument follows:

1. Managing Change--This scale assesses the degree to which members of the organization see the organization as effective in adapting to and managing change.








80

2. Achieving Goals--This scale measures how effective the organization is in achieving goals, the extent to which there are shared goals, and the degree to which these goals support improvement.

3. Coordinated Teamwork--This scale assesses the extent to which the organization is effective in coordinating the work of individuals and groups and the extent to which collaboration is present.

4. Customer Orientation--This scale assesses the extent to which

organizational activities are directed toward identifying and meeting the needs and goals of clients and customers.

5. Cultural Strength--This scale assesses the strength of the

organization's culture by asking respondents to report on the extent to which people agree on values (Sashkin, 1990). The score for each element is a tabulation of the six questions related to that cultural quality. Chapter 3 explained that the mean score for each element could range from 6 to 30. Table 3 presents the descriptive data for each division within each institution.

The mean score represents the degree of perception by administrators that these cultural elements are present in their division at each institution. Within each institution the student affairs administrators means for each cultural element were higher than the academic affairs administrators mean score for each cultural element. The standard deviations in 80% of the cultural elements were lower for student affairs administrators than for academic affairs administrators. This indicated more congruence among the perception of student affairs administrators than the perception of academic affairs administrators on these cultural elements. The Cultural Strength element consistently showed a smaller standard deviation and a lower score than the other cultural elements in both administrative groups. This indicated








81

there was more congruence regarding the degree of Cultural Strength within each division, although the perception of Cultural Strength was lower than for other cultural elements.



Table 3


Cule,,ra nlamantc hw Tnct tuuti nn


LJeL.DIlVe a) LpL aLI t I.Lb l IUI al1 ll, ip llal SA t Im 1 1. O U MI ILI


Academic Affairs Student Affairs

Std. Std.
No. Mean Dev. No. Mean Dev


Alpha College
Manage Change 25 20.320 2.982 14 20.643 3.104 Achieving Goals 24 17.792 3.021 14 18.929 4.178 Teamwork 25 17.120 3.456 14 19.071 2.165 Customer Orient. 25 20.320 2.982 14 20.643 3.104 Cultural Strength 25 16.880 2.369 14 17.143 1.610

Beta State University
Manage Change 29 16.828 5.050 17 20.471 2.787 Achieving Goals 29 17.103 4.693 17 20.000 4.138 Teamwork 30 17.700 3.697 17 20.294 2.173 Customer Orient. 31 16.774 3.631 17 21.176 2.555 Cultural Strength 29 16.103 2.664 16 17.125 1.962

Gamma University
Manage Change 67 21.293 3.674 21 21.905 3.375 Achieving Goals 66 20.409 3.433 20 20.959 3.268 Teamwork 72 20.375 2.755 21 21.000 2.302 Customer Orient. 72 20.375 2.895 21 21.524 3.958 Cultural Strength 73 17.918 1.963 21 18.048 1.910


In order to analyze the degree of significance of these mean

differences, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the elements between the administrative groups within each institution. Table 4 lists the ANOVA for each of the cultural elements as perceived by the academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators.











Table 4

Analysis of Variance Between Academic Affairs Administrators and Student Affairs Administrators Perception of the Organizational Cultural Elements



Institution Cultural Element F-Value Pr > F


Alpha College Managing Change 0.29 .5919 Achieving Goals 0.94 .3383 Teamwork 3.64 .0643 Customer Orientation 0.10 .7510 Cultural Strength 0.14 .7141 Beta State University Managing Change 7.46* .0090 Achieving Goals 4.44* .0408 Teamwork 6.96* .0114 Customer Orientation 19.58* .0001 Cultural Strength 1.80 .1862 Gamma University Managing Change 0.21 .6488 Achieving Goals 0.39 .5343 Teamwork 0.90 .3463 Customer Orientation 2.15 .1460 Cultural Strength 0.07 .7888


*A significant difference at the <.05 level.



The ANOVA showed that the only significant difference within an institution between academic affairs administrators' and student affairs administrators' perception of the organizational culture elements occurred at Beta State University. That institution's student affairs administrators viewed their organizational culture more positively in its ability to manage change, achieve goals, and coordinate teamwork than did academic affairs administrators. Student affairs administrators were much more focused toward their customers than were academic affairs administrators. The divisions within the other two institutions showed no significant differences in how they viewed these elements of organizational culture.








83

Results of the Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire and the individual and group interviews were used to answer the six research questions.

Question I

What are the shared assumptions. values and beliefs among administrators in student affairs divisions and in academic
affairs divisions on each campus?

Gamma University

Gamma University was an institution with strong traditions. Many of the administrators had been associated with the university for most of their professional career. In this environment, loyalty and pride was a value that was apparent. The academic affairs administrators spoke of loyalty and pride to the university, whereas most of the student affairs administrators spoke of their loyalty to their vice president and the student affairs division.

Both groups spoke of an environment which encouraged change and innovation. Striving for improvement was often mentioned by individuals from both administrative areas. This value was clearly espoused by the two vice presidents, who repeatedly spoke of the importance of change and continued improvement. Much of this change was done in a political arena because politicians in the state paid close attention to activities at the institution. A number of administrators said Gamma University operated in more of a political arena than their previous institutions and they valued staff who could take care of the politics of a given situation.

Another common value between the two divisions was their

commitment to excellence. Academic affairs spoke of striving for excellence in teaching, research, and service. Although academic administrators acknowledged that improvements had been made, there was a continual










commitment to achieving excellence. Student affairs administrators claimed they were on the "cutting edge" in integrating theory and practice in their programs. They took great pride in receiving regional and national recognition for their creative programs and entrepreneurial efforts.

Although the student affairs division at Gamma University reported

more traditions than did academic affairs, both divisions valued their sense of tradition. One of the campus traditions was that of civility in interpersonal relationships within the institution. Academic affairs administrators cited several examples of where individuals were retained because of their longevity with the institution even though they were ineffective in a particular position. Student affairs administrators spoke of the division being a "family which took care of each other." There was a commitment to each other as individuals, as well as professional colleagues.

The last value the two divisions had in common was that of service to students. "Taking care of students" was the primary value listed by all the student affairs administrators. A number of the student affairs administrators mentioned they probably assisted students to the extreme sometimes; however, the staff was devoted to helping students in whatever way they could. Academic affairs administrators, especially at the department chair level, also mentioned a commitment to students. Department chairs were very accommodating in meeting student needs. The upper level academic administrators were less vocal in their commitment to students as individuals, although they were concerned about providing a quality experience for students.



The two divisions in the liberal arts institution, Alpha College, exhibited some similar cultural attributes. Both the academic affairs and student affairs










divisions listed "assisting their students" as their number one priority. The most important customer for both groups was the student body. This value was expressed in the interviews and the survey results. The subscore for customer orientation was the strongest mean score for both academic affairs administrators (20.320) and student affairs administrators (20.642).

Both divisions valued the educational mission of the institution.

Academic affairs administrators placed high emphasis and pride in the quality of teaching at Alpha College. Student affairs administrators also valued the learning process, although they emphasized student development instead of classroom teaching. A majority of the student affairs administrators spoke of programs such as leadership, career advising, and counseling that were designed to assist in a student's overall development.

Another value common to both academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators was the importance of input into the governance structure. In academic affairs, administrators stressed the importance of faculty input in decision making, particularly those decisions related to curriculum, direction of the institution, and faculty relations. The governance structure at Alpha College placed an high emphasis on faculty committees in the decision-making process. Similarly, the student affairs decision-making style was quite collaborative in the early phases of the process. Staff felt they could provide input to most situations at the beginning of the fact gathering phase; however, they were often not involved in the final decision-making discussion.

The results of the Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire also revealed similarities between administrators in academic affairs and those in student affairs. The questionnaire did not specify the belief, value, or quality










but measured the congruence among administrators in their shared beliefs concerning normative behavior and attitudes in the division.

The interviews revealed a few shared values between academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators at Alpha College. Both groups viewed their primary customer as the students. Likewise, both sets of administrators emphasized the importance of effective teaching and learning, although the subject matter was quite different. Administrators stressed a collaborative decision-making process, with academic affairs using this technique throughout its decision-making process. Student affairs used collaboration in the early stages of decision making, although the dean often switched to an authoritative style in the final stages of decision making. Beta State University

Beta State University was a commuter institution which served a large metropolitan area and enrolled a diverse student body, from the older adult nondegree student to the full-time undergraduate traditional-aged student. Both divisions at Beta stressed the value of accepting diversity, especially within their student population. Administrators in student affairs placed emphasis on the racial and age diversity in the student population. The academic administrators spoke of their commitment to the community population, which was older and racially mixed, and produced many part-time older students.

Beta State University's composition of three geographically separate campuses has produced administrators that valued their autonomy and independence. Academic administrators spoke of their independence and the strong notion of academic freedom on campus. High level administrators reported that this value was taken to the extreme in some cases as there were numerous small colleges or programs that were not connected to larger










academic departments or colleges with similar academic programs. Student affairs administrators stressed the independence and autonomy each of them had to administer their own programs. This independence was highly valued, although administrators did express concern about the competition for resources that it created among the departments in student affairs.

Being a young, growing institution with many needs, administrators in both divisions had to pay attention to the political ramifications of their decisions. Public higher education in the state was very political so administrators were quite candid about the importance of perception in their decisions. An example of a political decision affecting the institution in academic affairs was the legislative mandate for an academic vice president on each of the three campuses. This created a duplication of services and confusion as to roles of authority. Administrators in the student affairs division also reported that politics were very important, but the politics were of a different nature. Administrators indicated that the politics were often a factor as the division's departments were positioning for status with the vice president for student affairs.

In general, the academic affairs division and student affairs division at Beta State University had more dissimilarities than similarities. These are discussed more fully in the discussion on question 2. Summary

The two administrative divisions at Gamma University shared more

beliefs and values than the academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators at the other two institutions. Similarly, Beta State University showed there were few common values held by the two divisions. Even when they held the same belief, the motivation for the belief was quite different.










Question-2

What are the similarities and differences between the
organizational culture of academic affairs administrators and the
organizational culture of student affairs administrators on each
campus?

An examination of research Question 2 provided additional insights

regarding differences and similarities between the administrative culture in academic affairs and student affairs at each of the institutions. A logical way to explain the similarities and differences in the administrative organizational culture in academic affairs and student affairs was to explore the cultural elements of the Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire. Each institution's administrative culture is addressed through the cultural elements of Managing Change, Achieving Goals, Coordinated Teamwork, Customer Orientation, and Cultural Strength.

Gamma University

Managing change. Both divisions' mean score on Managing Change fell in the average range for normative scores on the C . Student affairs administrators scored a mean of 21.905 with a standard deviation of 3.375, whereas academic affairs had a mean of 21.493 with a standard deviation of

3.674. There were no significant differences between the two divisional means on this cultural element.

A new president came to Gamma University in 1990, followed by new provost in 1992. Since that time change has been a commonly used word among administrators in the division of academic affairs. The provost has replaced 9 of the 16 academic deans so the division has changed dramatically. Most of the deans seemed excited about the changes. However, deans and departments chairs reported that a number of department chairs and faculty were less enthusiastic. Tradition at Gamma University was very strong, and








89

some department chairs and faculty viewed these changes as too drastic for the campus environment. The politics of influential groups in the state also have played an important role in many of the academic decisions at Gamma University by either prohibiting or contributing to change in the academic structure.

The provost had decentralized much of the decision making and

delegated it to the colleges, thereby giving the deans a great deal of autonomy. He also used task forces as a method of getting ideas from the provost office discussed and implemented. The faculty task forces made the recommendations to the faculty governance process and pushed for change rather than the provost himself doing so. The provost found this process more effective than his pushing for changes.

The division of academic affairs was in a period of intense change. A few of top administrators admitted that they were trying to create as much change as possible in a short period of time because the organization's threshold for accepting change would soon be reached. Academic affairs administrators wanted to take advantage of this period before the organization and its members reach the plateau of stabilization.

Change also seemed prevalent in the student affairs administrative culture at Gamma University. Although most of the administrators talked about tradition and the "Gamma Way" as a prevalent way of doing things, administrators seemed open to new ideas. Change and an entrepreneurial spirit were encouraged by the vice president, as long as the new concept or project could be justified and did not detract from the division's mission. The division seemed to use change as a method of staying invigorated since many of the administrators had been in the division for quite some time and many had received their degrees from the institution.










Decision making within the division usually involved group discussions, either at the department or central staff level. Focus groups from across the division were often used for difficult issues where there were no easy answers. These discussions were perceived as open for all opinions and people were free to disagree, as long as they were loyal and supportive of the final decision. Administrators stressed that decisions be made at the lowest possible level, after all the ramifications (especially political ones) had been explored. If the project had political ramifications, the vice president was usually involved in the situation. The vice president was perceived as politically astute and represented the division and institution well with state and local politicians.

Achieving goals. Both divisions' mean score on Achieving Goals fell in the average range for normative scores on the QC6Q. Student affairs scored a mean of 20.950 with a standard deviation of 3.268, whereas academic affairs had a mean of 20.409 with a standard deviation of 3.433. The two divisional means showed no significant difference in how the two groups of administrators viewed this cultural element.

The president and provost have succeeded in selling their goal of Gamma University joining the ranks of the Association of American Universities (AAU) to most of the deans. Many of the academic deans who did not believe in the goal have chosen to retire or go elsewhere. This goal has meant assessing the current academic programs and prioritizing which programs received additional funds to improve further their undergraduate and graduate programs. Some of the department chairs and a few of the deans were not pleased that their program(s) were not among the emphasized programs. Despite the presence of this inequitable financial support, the deans were supportive of the work being done to develop into an AAU institution. The deans saw the larger payoff of a better undergraduate




Full Text

PAGE 1

A COMPARISON OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE BETWEEN ACADEMIC AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS AND STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS AT SELECTED INSTITUTIONS OF fflGHER EDUCATION BY IRENE STEVENS A DISSERTATION STUDY SUBMnTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1997

PAGE 2

Copyright 1997 by Irene Stevens

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation represents the accumulation of years of classes, projects, and academic endeavors in two doctorate programs. At times it seemed never ending and overwhelming; however, it has been a rewarding experience from which I have grown and matured. This accomplishment would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of a special group of people. Sincere appreciation goes to my committee members, Dr. Mary HowardHamilton and Dr. David Honeyman, and my committee cochairs. Dr. Art Sandeen and Dr. James Wattenbarger, for their encouragement, support, and patience. A special thank you goes to Dr. Sandeen and Dr. Wattenbarger who encouraged me through the stalling, drafts, and changes with patience and humor. A thank you goes to my friends in the Office for Student Services at the University of Florida for their professional and psychological support during the past 5 years. A special thank you goes to Dr. Phyllis Meek for her suggestions and proofreading when it did not seem to flow. Another special thank you goes to Doug Diekow for nudging me throiigh the phases and for keeping things in a humorous perspective. I would also like to thank two supportive supervisors, Dr. James Scott and Dr. Tom Hill, who encouraged me to take the time needed to complete the degree so I could go on to the next phase of my life, whatever that may be. Dr. Michael Rollo also deserves a special thank you for his psychological encouragement and computer assistance. iii

PAGE 4

My sincere appreciation is extended to Dr. Marshall Sashkin for allowing me to use his instrument, the Or ganizational Culture Assessment Ouestionaire . He was very helpful and supportive of the research. A special thank you goes to my best friend, Dr. Linda Thornton. Her encouragement, gentle prodding, emotional support, sound advice, patience, and financial assistance have been invaluable. I thank her for being there and reminding me at every bump along the way that "it is all part of the process; you are writing a dissertation." I owe her a great deal, and I am eternally grateful. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, Zelda and LeRoy, who raised me with the belief that anything is possible with hard work and honesty. They are truly pleased that I have finished "the book." I appreciate their support and the values they instilled in me while growing up on that Idaho farm. iv

PAGE 5

. • ; TABLE OF CONTENTS f ' r . pa ge ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES vjjj ABSTRACT jx CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1 Statement of the Problem I Purpose of the Study 3 Justification for the Study 5 Significance of the Study 7 Organizational Culture Theory 9 Definition of Terms j j Limitations of Study 22 Organization of the Dissertation I3 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE I4 Origins of Organizational Culture 14 Definitions of Organizational Culture 17 Cultural Dimensions 20 Institutional Culture 24 Subcultures 28 Faculty Subculture 32 Student Affairs Subculture 41 Researching Organizational Culture 3.".... 49 3 METHODOLOGY 54 Design of the Study 54 Data Analysis ^2 Summary 4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY Overview of Chapter ^_ Synopsis of Research Process 77 Results of Organizational Culture Assessmeiir Questionnaire..'^/.'.'.". 79 V

PAGE 6

Chapter Summary 168 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 173 Review of Study 173 Review of Findings 175 Conclusions Igl Implications for Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Administrators 183 Implications for Future Research 185 Concluding Remarks 187 REFERENCES 188 APPENDICES A INSTRUCTIONS FOR JURY TO VALIDATE THE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 1 97 B JURY EVALUATION FORM 198 C ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURAL ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 1 99 D COVER LETTER FOR SURVEY DIRECTED TO STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS 203 E COVER LETTER FOR SURVEY DIRECTED TO ACADEMIC AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS 204 F LETTER TO ADMINISTRATORS CONFIRMmG INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS ; 205 G LETTER TO ADMINISTRATORS REQUESTING PARTICIPATION IN A GROUP INTERVIEW 206 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 207 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 OCAQ Normative Ranges for the Cultural Element Subscores 62 2 Distribution and Return Rate of OCAQ Survey 65 3 Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Culture Elements by Institution 81 4 Analysis of Variance Between Academic Affairs Administrators and Student Affairs Administrators Perception of the Organizational Cultural Elements 82 5 Student Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Managing Change 127 6 Student Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Achieving Goals 130 7 Student Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Coordinating Teamwork 133 8 Student Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Customer Orientation 136 9 Student Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Cultural Strength 138 10 Academic Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Managing Change 144 1 1 Academic Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Achieving Goals 148 12 Academic Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Coordinating Teamwork 151 13 Academic Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Customer Orientation 154 14 Academic Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Cultural Strength I57 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 Bar graph showing means of cultural elements in academic affairs and student affairs at Gamma University 100 2 Bar graph showing means of cultural elements in academic affairs and student affairs at Alpha College 112 3 Bar graph showing means of cultural elements in academic affairs and student affairs at Beta State University 124 4 Bar graph showing student affairs divisional mean scores on five cultural elements 126 5 Bar graph showing academic affairs divisional mean scores on five cultural elements 143 viii

PAGE 9

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy A COMPARISON OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE BETWEEN ACADEMIC AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS AND STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS AT SELECTED INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION By Irene Stevens December, 1997 Chair: Dr. James E. Wattenbarger Cochair: Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen Major Department: Educational Leadership During the past 15 years, the theoretical construct of organizational culture has increasingly been used to explain the nuances of organizations. The functional perspective of organizational culture is derived from the sociological perspective that views all organizations as systems within larger societal systems. Culture is viewed as learned behavior that serves as the glue that holds the organization together and provides organizational identity, stability, and effectiveness. Culture can be uncovered by examining how an organization expresses itself through its rituals and normative behavior and by exploring the underlying values and assumptions within the organization. Although there have been an increasing number of diverse organizational culture studies in higher education, few have dealt with the administrative subcultures. This study examines the organizational culture of two administrative subcultures, the academic affairs division and student affairs division, on three different types of campuses. IX

PAGE 10

Both qualitative and quantitative inquiry methods were used to answer the research questions. The Or ganizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire , which measured five cultural elements, and semi-structured interviews were used to identify the culture within each division, compare the similarities and differences of two divisions on each campus, and compare the three student affairs cultures and the three academic affairs cultures from an occupational perspective. The conclusions of the study included the following: (a) student affairs administrators generally rated their cultural elements higher than did academic affairs administrators; (b) there were a high number of cultural similarities among the three student affairs divisions; (c) there were few cultural similarities among all the three academic affairs divisions; (d) academic department chairs did not view themselves as part of the academic administrative culture; (e) the primary customer for student affairs divisions was students, whereas the primary customers for academic affairs divisions were the faculty and academic programs; and (f) the qualitative and quantitative inquiry methods complemented each other and allowed for comparison of the two administrative subcultures. X

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION OF STUDY The study of organizational culture has become one of the major domains of organizational research, and some might even argue that it has become the most active arena, eclipsing studies of formal structure of organization, environment research, and of bureaucracy. (Ouchi & Wilkins, 1985, p. 457) Statement of the Problem ' The study of culture grew from the discipline of anthropology. In 1944 Bronislaw Malinowski stated that culture was common to all people and organizations. He wrote that culture involved material aspects (artifacts), norms (standardized modes of behavior), symbolic acts (representing values and beliefs), and activities that are completed to achieve the function of the society or organization (1944). Clifford Geertz (1973), the noted anthropologist, wrote that societal culture "denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which [people] communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life" (p. 25). Culture also became a popular construct used by sociologists to examine organizations and systems within societies (Parsons, 1960). By the 1970s organizational management theorists were applying this concept to organizations as a means of understanding the values, assumptions, and beliefs that guide behavior in organizations. Bergquist (1992), Lindquist (1978), Masland (1985), Schein (1985), and Tierney (1988) supported cultural studies as a means of explaining the nuances of the organization, thereby assisting individuals in 1

PAGE 12

understanding conflicts, behaviors, and decision-making processes within educational institutions. Organizational culture studies have been adapted to higher education since 1970. A number of researchers have studied the role of organizational culture in institutions of higher education (Austin, 1990; Bergquist, 1992; Bowen, 1977; Chaffee & Tiemey, 1988; Clark, 1970; Kirchner, 1992; Piatt, 1988). These studies have focused on institutional culture or the relationship of culture to academic leadership. Few researchers have examined subcultures within the institution, although Kuh and Hall (1993), Kuh and Whitt (1988a), Martin and Siehl (1983), Tierney (1988), and Van Maanen and Barley (1984) have stressed the importance of examining differences and similarities among organizational subcultures. Administrators and faculty within institutions of higher education represent separate subcultures within the organization (DickersonGifford, 1990; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a; Love, Kuh, MacKay, & Hardy, 1993; Martin & Siehl, 1983). Although both of these groups work toward the general educational mission, they may view the institution and the institutional culture from different perspectives. All administrative units within a college or university work toward the institutional mission; however, some are more closely aligned to the academic mission of teaching and service than are other administrative units. Student affairs administrators' emphasis on student development is similar to the academic affairs emphasis on teaching and the transmission of knowledge. Personnel within student affairs and academic affairs both work toward teaching the student and interact on a regular basis to achieve the institution's mission. Although both groups are administrators, they approach their roles from their own occupational identity, perspectives, and norms

PAGE 13

3 (Dickerson-Gifford, 1990; Love et al., 1993). Academic administrators come from a faculty background, whereas student affairs administrators usually come from a student development or counseling perspective. Each of these occupational communities has created its own work culture consisting of standards of conduct, rituals for performing routine tasks, specialized language or codes, norms for socializing new members, and values (Love et al., 1993; Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). These differences may cause difficulties and miscommunication between administrative personnel in the two divisions as they work toward achieving the institutional mission. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to use the theoretical construct of organizational culture to explain how academic affairs and student affairs divisions operate within an institution. The research, using both qualitative and quantitative methodology, examined the organizational culture of these two subgroups. The research assessed and compared the administrative organizational culture of student affairs divisions and academic affairs divisions to determine the similarities and differences in organizational culture between the two administrative divisions. Assessment of the organizational culture of these two subcultures furthers the knowledge of the role culture plays within higher education institutions. Since the research was conducted on different types of institutions, the research also explored whether the organizational cultures in academic affairs and student affairs were institutionally or occupationally based. This study focused on two occupational subcultures within institutions of higher education, administrators in academic affairs divisions and administrators in student affairs divisions. The cultural exploration of these occupational subcultures was to provide information as to the basic beliefs,

PAGE 14

4 values, and assumptions which guide behavior and provide meaning for administrators within student affairs divisions and academic affairs divisions. The research also explored whether culture within occupational subgroups was institutionally based or occupationally based. A lack of commonalties within the student affairs subcultures and within the academic affairs subcultures would have indicated that the institutional culture was stronger than an occupational culture. The major research questions which were addressed in the study are as follows: 1. What are the shared assumptions, values, and beliefs among administrators in student affairs divisions and in academic affairs divisions on each campus? 2. What are the similarities and differences between the organizational culture of academic affairs administrators and the organizational culture of student affairs administrators on each campus? 3. What are the similarities and differences among the three institutions' student affairs administrative subculture? 4. What are the similarities and differences among the three institutions' academic affairs administrative subculture? 5. Is there a common organizational culture among student affairs administrative divisions, even though they may be situated in different types of institutions? 6. Is there a common organizational culture among academic affairs administrative divisions, even though they may be situated in different types of institutions? This study combined the use of the Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire (OCAQ), developed by Marshall Sashkin (1993), with the general qualitative methodology espoused by Edgar Schein (1985, 1992) to explore the

PAGE 15

5 organizational culture of administrators in student affairs and in academic affairs divisions within three institutions. A description of the methodology is explained in detail in Chapter 3, although the research assessed each division's normative beliefs, values, and assumptions which guided the behavior of its members. The research included the OCAO . individual interviews, and document analysis within the respective student affairs and academic affairs divisions. The three institutions studied were representative of different types of educational institutions in the United States. All three institutions were located within the southeastern part of the United States. Alpha College was a 3,500 student traditional liberal arts residential college in an suburban area in Florida. In this study. Alpha represented small private colleges with a predominant undergraduate curriculum. Beta State University was an urban state institution with 16,000 students, 90% of whom were commuters. Although Beta State University had some graduate programs, the primary emphasis of its curriculum was undergraduate education. Beta State University served a diverse and growing metropolitan area in the southeast. Gamma University, a 26,700 student residential and comprehensive institution, was a large statesupported institution with both graduate and undergraduate programs. These three institutions provided the opportunity to examine student affairs administrative divisions and academic affairs administrative divisions on different types of campuses. Justification for the Study A cultural understanding of organizations can assist in understanding how an organization responds to events, trends, or particular conditions. Yerkes, Cuellar, and Cuellar (1992) wrote that organizational theorists have shown "that in spite of the complexity and ambiguity of organizations, certain

PAGE 16

''r*f-6 general principles could be used to analyze these organizations and better understand how individuals and social groups interact within them" (p. 4). Studying the cultural aspect of an organization is one of the primary methods people can use to understand the activities and decisions of an organization (Bergquist, 1992; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a; Maslund, 1985; Sergiovanni, 1984; Tierney, 1988). Edgar Schein (1985), a practitioner in organizational development, wrote that organizational culture should be understood by leaders in the organization for three reasons: 1. Culture has a potent impact on the organization and its members as it is "visible" and "feelable." 2. Culture affects all behavior in the organization; therefore, individual and organizational performance are intrinsically tied to it. 3. Culture is often confused with climate, philosophy, ideology, and style and needs to be known as its separate identity (pp. 24-25). Understanding the culture of the organization can assist leaders and members of that organization in predicting how personnel will react to issues and change. Kuh and Hall (1993), Kuh and Whitt (1988a), and Martin and Siehl (1983) have mentioned the different subcultures within institutions of higher education: faculty, administrators, and students. A number of studies have been written on the faculty and student subcultures. The faculty/academic subculture studies are reviewed in Chapter 2. The administrative subculture within higher education has received less attention than either of the other subcultures. Kuh and Hall (1993), Kuh and Whitt (1988a), and Tierney (1988) have ' suggested that additional research is needed in understanding the administrative subculture. Dickerson-Gifford's 1990 dissertation examined an

PAGE 17

7 aspect of culture when she compared the values of student affairs administrators to academic affairs administrators. One of the few culture related studies was done by Love (1990) which was an examination of the culture of a residence life department. In 1991, Billups examined administrators' perception of the organizational culture within higher education. This study utilized administrators in student affairs, admissions, institutional research, and development. The results indicated that student affairs personnel did view the institutional culture differently than other administrators in the study. Although student affairs personnel viewed institutional culture differently than other administrators, there is little empirical research identifying the culture of student affairs divisions. The identification of the cultural characteristics of student affairs divisions adds to the growing literature on higher education, organizational culture, and occupational subcultures. Two important subcultures that have a similar function to educate students are academic affairs and student affairs. To this point no study has undertaken the task of explaining the differences and similarities between the organizational cultures of student affairs administrators and academic affairs administrators. This comparative cultural study assists in filling this void in the literature. Administrators can use the information from this study to understand the cultural similarities and differences between student affairs and academic affairs within the institution, thereby improving the understanding and working relationship between the two administrative units. Si gnificance of the Study An organization's culture is often referred to as the "glue" that holds the organization together (Smircich, 1983a). Knowledge of the assumptions

PAGE 18

and values that underlie the culture can be used to predict behaviors and reactions to situations. Cultural knowledge can also be used to improve the quality of the environment and the productivity of the organization. In higher education, the initial assessment of institutional culture was predominantly done by assessing the academic culture of specific institutions (Clark, 1970; Foote, Mayer, & Associates, 1968; Riesman, Gusfield, & Gamson, 1970). This was followed by investigations into the student subculture and the faculty subculture (Becher, 1981; Bess, 1982; Clark, 1980, 1984b; Freedman, 1979; Gaff & Wilson, 1971; Ruscio, 1987). A broader perspective of institutional culture was studied by Bergquist (1992), Bolman and Deal (1991), and Chaffee and Tierney (1988) when they examined various institutions and explained different types of collegiate culture. The administrative subculture within higher education has received less attention that either of the other subcultures or institutional culture. Dill (1982), Kuh and Whitt (1988a), and Tierney (1988) have suggested the need for more studies of subcultures, specifically administrative subcultures. They have also recommended the comparisons of subcultures so that understanding between groups on campus can be strengthened. Two administrative divisions that work in conjunction with one another in providing learning opportunities to students are academic affairs and student affairs. Although academic affairs staff and student affairs staff often work on joint projects, it is common to hear that they do not understand each other or the other's perspective. This study adds to the current organizational culture literature in higher education by providing information on the cultures of these two institutional subcultures. Since there is little literature on the culture of student affairs divisions and the administrative subculture, the study also establishes a baseline of information which can be used for future research.

PAGE 19

9 Most studies in organizational culture have utilized qualitative research methodology to identify dimensions of culture. An organization's culture is so immersed within the day-to-day activities that members of the organization have difficulty in identifying the culture, therefore, making quantitative research difficult. Peterson and Spencer (1990) said that the ethnographic methods of open-ended interviews, observations, and the examination of institutional documents are the most appropriate methods of studying organizational culture. This triangulation method was also suggested by Schein (1985, 1992) and Tiemey (1988). Some organizational development experts also stress the importance of quantitative data that can be compared and analyzed (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988). Marshall Sashkin (1990) developed one of the few quantitative instruments that measures aspects of organizational culture. The Or ganizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire ( OCAQ) measures "the ways that people in the organization generally think and act" (p. 3). This study combined the use of the OCAQ with qualitative interviews and document analysis. This combination allowed for a more consistent comparison of the findings between the two subcultures in each institution and among similar subcultures in the three institutions. This study is among the first studies to use a quantitative method of studying subcultures in higher education institutions. Or ganizational Culture Theory Studies in organizational culture have primarily originated from the field of anthropology. In the 1940s noted anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski developed the functional theory of culture which viewed culture as an instrument which assisted humans in coping with their basic needs and

PAGE 20

10 maintaining social control. Malinowski (1944) wrote that culture created institutions which were universal to all groups of people. The institutions created in a culture related to different associations among the members to meet their basic needs. Malinowski identified the cultural institutions of "kinship, community, physiological, voluntary associations, occupational associations, rank and status, and comprehensive" as paramount to maintain any society (p. 64). Allaire and Firsirotu (1984) wrote that the functional school of culture was adapted by sociologists such as Parsons and organizational management theorists such as Mayo, Maslow, Mcgregor, Homans, Ouchi, and Schein. They viewed organizations from a sociocultural systems perspective that saw the organization as a social structure that functioned to meet the satisfaction and needs of its members. They also viewed the organization as a purposeful system which enacted the values of society and its members (Allaire & Firsirotu, 1984). Another anthropological perspective on culture was identified as an ideational system by Allaire and Firsirotu (1984). Although different theorists have developed various perspectives, the commonalty is that each views culture as being an interpretation in the individual and collective mind of the members. The cognitive school of thought was espoused by Goodenough (1971) as a system of knowledge which sets standards for perceiving, believing, evaluating, and acting within a society. The organizational management theories of organizational climate and organizational learning use Goodenough's cognitive theory to enhance their position. Argyris and Schon (1978) wrote of organizations developing shared images and maps which help construct members' image of the organization's theory-in-use. They described an organization as being an agency with rules for decisions, delegation, and

PAGE 21

u membership; a task system of interconnected roles designated to perform specific tasks; and an embedded set of norms, strategies, and assumptions which constitutes its "theory of action" (p. 14). Another school of thought within the ideational perspective is Clifford Geertz's symbolic theory of culture (Allaire & Firsirotu, 1984). Geertz (1973) viewed culture as coming from the "meaning" shared by actors within the society or organization. Culture is interpreted from the meanings people assign to behaviors, ideas, and thoughts. Organizational management theorists such as Clark, Selznick, Pettigrew, and Wilkins have stressed the importance of an organization's history and leadership in developing a collective meaning which is manifested in the organization's myths, values, sagas, character, and emotional structures (Allaire & Firsirotu, 1984). Symbolic theorists such as Clark, Morgan, Pondy and Smircich have used thick description and ethnomethodological research methods to describe and interpret culture in organizations. This research utilized the functional theory of organizational culture as the structure for conducting and interpreting the study. Schein's methodology for organizational culture research was used as a basis for the interview portion of the study. Sashkin's OCAO . which was based on Parson's theoretical writings, was used for the quantitative portion of the study. Definition of Terms It is important that there be a consistent understanding of the terms related to organizational culture. The terms utilized in this study are defined below.

PAGE 22

12 Student affairs administrators are full-time administrators within a student affairs division who are employed in a student development department in the administrative capacity of director, dean, or vice president. Academic affairs administrators are full-time members of an academic affairs division who serves in an administrative capacity of department chair, dean, or vice president. Or ganizational culture is the embedded patterns of organizational behavior and the shared assumptions, values, and beliefs which have developed over time among members of a given organization. Subculture refers to subgroups within an organization who interact regularly with one another, perceive themselves as a distinct group within the organization, share a common set of values, have a commonly defined set of problems, and act on a basis of understandings that are unique to that group (Van Maanen & Barley, 1985). Occupational community is "a group of people who consider themselves to be engaged in the same sort of work; whose identity is drawn from the work; who share with one another a set of values, norms, and perspectives that apply to but extend beyond work related matters; and whose social relationships meld work and leisure" (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984, p. 287). Limitations of the Study From the definitions of organizational culture and subcultures, it was assumed that student affairs divisions and academic affairs divisions were distinct subcultures within the institutions and had their own cultural attributes. There were certain limitations that set the parameters of this study. Those limitations were as follows:

PAGE 23

13 1. Although the institutions represented three types of institutions within higher education, a small private institution, a state research institution, and a state urban and commuter institution, they were all located in the southeastern region of the United States. 2. This study did not declare any hypotheses. It answered the research questions by inductively assessing the gathered data and assigning meaning in a cultural context. Or ganization of the Dissertation This dissertation is organized into five chapters. This first chapter provides an overview of the lack of research on the student affairs and academic affairs administrative subcultures within institutions of higher education. The chapter also outlined the proposal for comparing the academic and student affairs administrative subcultures. A review of the related literature is presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 identifies the methodology used in identifying and analyzing the organizational culture of the two subcultures. The results of the data analysis are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the findings and explores additional needs in studying administrative organizational culture.

PAGE 24

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction This chapter examines organizational culture from a variety of perspectives. After a brief history of the concept of organizational culture, its theories, and definitions are explored. Significant studies on organizational culture in higher education are reported. The concept of subcultures within the organization is discussed, followed by a synopsis of significant studies on faculty and student affairs subcultures in higher education. Origins of Organizational Culture Culture has been a concept in anthropological studies for decades; however, only since the 1960s has it been addressed in reference to organizations (Cameron & Ettington, 1988; Smircich, 1983a). Sociologists and organizational management theorists have applied cultural studies to organizations as a means of understanding the embedded beliefs, assumptions, and values of organizations (Allaire & Firsirotu, 1984). The study of organizational culture, having emerged from anthropology, has developed along two different approaches. Functional Perspective The functional perspective views culture as an independent variable within the organization which explains its structure, performance, and activities. Researchers in this perspective (Clark, 1970; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981; Parsons, 1960; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Sashkin, 1990; Schein, 1985) view culture as "something the organization has." The organization's 14

PAGE 25

15 culture is often used to predict the organization's behavior, and it is believed that culture can be managed. This perspective is largely utilized by organizational management theorists, although a few sociologists have discussed the functional aspects of culture. Talcott Parsons (1960), noted sociologist, wrote about the need to understand how the structure and processes of an organization combine to form a social system within a larger societal system. Parsons said that all organizations possess a cultural perspective and a role perspective that need to be understood in each organization. The cultural perspective is centered around a system of values which define the functions and patterns of the organization. The primary functions Parsons identified as essential to the organization's cultural perspective and driven by its value system included "goal attainment, adaptation to a situation, and integration of the system" (1960, p. 20). Goal attainment refers to the manner the organization uses to establish goals and procure resources to attain the goals. Adaptation to a situation is related to the way an organization can adapt to changes in goals and procedures. Integration refers to the manner in which members relate to each other and their commitment to the organization. Parsons (1960) emphasized the importance of understanding the cultural perspective of organizations. Functionalists view culture as learned behavior which serves as the "glue" (Smircich, 1983a) that holds the organization together and provides organizational identity, stability, and effectiveness. Culture is uncovered by examining how an organization expresses itself through its rituals, symbols, stories, and other cultural artifacts. Functionalists believe there are four basic assumptions about culture: (a) culture is cognitive and can be understood by participants and researchers alike; (b) culture has a basic meaning that

PAGE 26

16 participants can understand and identify; (c) culture makes it possible to codify abstract realities; and (d) culture can be predictive and generalizable (Tierney, 1988, p. 15). Functionalists view culture as an integral part of the organization which can be managed by an effective leader, if that leader has knowledge of the cultural aspects of the organization. Interpretive Perspective Another theoretical perspective views an "organization as a culture" rather than having a culture. This interpretive perspective derives its origins from traditional anthropology with a sociological perspective. Its origins come from the writings of Geertz and Goodenough, who stressed the symbolic meanings held by the members of the organization or society (Allaire & Firsirotu, 1984). Recent research in organizational behavior and symbolic interactionism have tried to define culture and identify manifestations of organizational culture. The researcher emphasizes immersion in the culture to learn the symbols, language, and rituals of the members in order to understand and identify the culture. The researchers in the anthropological perspective (Barley, 1983; Frost & Morgan, 1983; Geertz, 1973; Smircich, 1983a; Van Maanen, 1979) study culture as the object of their explanation, rather than a means to explain some aspect of the organization. The organization is viewed as the culture; however, it is based on the process of social interchange among participants. Interpretive researchers have four assumptions regarding culture. They say culture is not necessarily understandable to organization participants or researchers. Not all participants interpret a similar cultural reality; therefore, it is impossible to codify abstract cultural realities. The last assumption is that culture is constantly being interpreted by negotiation between the participant and the researcher (Tierney, 1988). Rituals, symbols, and ceremonies are also studied;

PAGE 27

17 however, they are simply components that shape meanings and cannot be generalizable. The sum of the various interactions that create meaning to organizational participants results in the organization's culture (Tierney, 1988). Since the 1980s the study of organizational culture has increased significantly. In part, this was due to human resource development consultants who have stressed the importance of culture in understanding organizations. Popular organizational development consultants, such as Deal and Kennedy (1982), Ouchi (1981), Peters and Waterman (1982), and Schein (1985), wrote books expounding the virtues of managers understanding their organization's culture. This emphasis on the cultural aspect of the organization has resulted in various research studies and writings linking culture and leadership (Billups, 1991; Chaffee & Tierney, 1988; Cunningham & Gresso, 1993; Schein, 1985, 1992), culture and organizational change (Martin, 1992; Schein, 1992), culture and organizational theory (Cameron & Ettington, 1988; Frost, 1985; Smircich, 1983a; Van Maanen & Barley, 1985), culture and educational institutions (Bergquist, 1992; Chaffee & Tierney, 1988; Clark, 1972; Kirchner, 1992; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a; Skrtic, 1985; Tierney, 1990), and culture and research methods (Clark, 1972; Lincoln, 1985; Lundberg, 1985; Pettigrew, 1979; Schein, 1985, 1992; Trice & Beyer, 1984; Van Maanen, 1979; Wilkins, 1983). Organizational culture has become one of the current topics in management and organizational studies. Definitions of Organizational Culture Although much has been studied and written about organizational culture, there is a lack of agreement as to its meaning within the field. Because researchers come from different theoretical, epistemological, and methodological perspectives, there has been little commonalty among

PAGE 28

18 definitions or outcomes in organizational culture research (Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1991). Those in the functionalist perspective view culture differently than those in the interpretive perspective, although most mention that culture includes the shared beliefs, values, and assumptions passed on to members in the organization. In Andrew Pettigrew's article (1979) on the analysis of culture, he stated that culture was "the system of such publicly given and collectively accepted meanings operating for a given group at a given time," and he encouraged that culture be studied by analyzing its "symbolic language, ideology, belief, ritual, and myth" (p. 574). Pettigrew's definition implies that cultures change as membership in the organization changes and as new members bring in their own language, values, and beliefs. Deal and Kennedy (1982) defined culture as a core set of assumptions, understandings, and implicit rules that govern day-to-day behavior in the workplace. An expanded definition was espoused by Bolman and Deal (1991) when they said, "An organization develops distinctive beliefs and patterns over time. Many of these assumptions and patterns are unconscious or taken for granted. They are reflected in myths, fairy tales, stories, rituals, ceremonies, and other symbolic forms" (p. 268). Kuh and Whitt (1988b) were discussing faculty culture when they said "culture is defined as the collective, mutually shaping patterns of norms, values, practices, beliefs, and assumptions which guide the behavior of individual faculty and groups and provide a frame of reference within which to interpret the meaning of events and actions on and off the campus" (p. 6). Although they were referencing faculty culture, the concepts are relevant to all organizations.

PAGE 29

19 Smircich (1983a) defined culture as "the social or normative glue" that holds the organization together and serves four purposes: (a) it conveys a sense of identity for the organization; (b) it facilitates a commitment to something other than itself; (c) it enhances the social system stability; and (d) it assists members in making sense of the organization and guiding their behavior (p. 343-346). Culture is an integral part of an organization and central to understanding an organization. Rosen (1991) defined culture from a social constructedness perspective. He said that "culture is a constructed document or public rhetoric developed over time through the shared, accumulated experiences of members of any social grouping, giving rise to such system specific ideational elements as assumptions, ideas, values, and norms" (p. 273). The implication is that culture is developed over a period of time and does not change quickly. Schein (1991) has provided one of the most detailed definitions of culture as a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems, (p. 12) Schein presented three levels of culture which are present in any wellestablished organization: artifacts, values, and basic assumptions. The most visible examples of organizational culture are artifacts of the culture which represent its physical and social environment, (i.e., language, use of technology, use of space, art, and the behavior of its members). The organization's values, what the organization ought to be about, is the second level of culture. The values espoused by the organization's members may be different than those reflected in the behavior in the organization. The third level of culture is more difficult to uncover in the organization. It is composed

PAGE 30

20 of the basic assumptions which have become ingrained in the organization and are now taken for granted. For example, solutions that repeatedly work have become the automatic methodology used whenever a problem arises. These basic assumptions are more difficult to determine in an organization because the members of the organization take them for granted. There is no common definition of organizational culture; therefore, it is difficult to definitely say what is entailed in culture. The following properties, however, are thought to be shared in organizational culture (Schein, 1991): (a) observable repeated behavior, such as their language, customs and traditions, and rituals; (b) group norms that guide behavior; (c) values espoused by the organization; (d) the organization's philosophy that determines their actions and attitudes toward different constituents; (e) rules for interacting in the organization; (f) the organizational climate which determines the manner of interactions; (g) the embedded skills held by generations of group members; (h) ways of thinking and talking that are shared with new members through the socialization process; (i) shared meanings among group members; and (j) the symbols or metaphors that represent the ideas, feelings, and images by which the organization views itself. Cultural Dimensions Organizational culture is both a process and a product of the organization. Culture continually changes as members, especially those in leadership roles, change in the organization. The socialization of new members is extremely important in the transference of the culture to members of the organization. The communication processes, both within the organization and to outside agencies or constituencies, are vitally important in determining the culture. Likewise, the importance of leaders understanding

PAGE 31

the organization's culture is paramount for leaders wishing to change or fully understand the organization (Peters & Waterman, 1982; Schein, 1991; Sergiovanni, 1984). One of the ways researchers have attempted to make sense of the cultural perspective in organizations is through the development of cultural frameworks or dimensions. These frames typically provide a blueprint for examining culture. For example, Trice and Beyer (1984) suggested that culture can be studied by examining and analyzing rituals or rites within the organization. They wrote that the examination of the following six rituals was the best way to understand the complexity of culture: rites of passage, rites of degradation, rites of enhancement, rites of renewal, rites of conflict reduction, and rites of integration. Many researchers indicate that culture can be understood through the observation and examination of rites, sagas, myths, legends, ceremonies, rituals, language systems, procedures, physical space, interaction patterns, and customs. These are the most observable examples of cultural artifacts available to researchers. They, however, do not get at the underlying dimensions of organizational values and cultural assumptions. Schein (1992) has developed a framework that addresses the basic assumptions of how an organization's culture implicitly guides members in how they perceive, think about, and feel about things. Schein says that basic assumptions are formed around the following cultural dimensions which are often taken for granted: 1. The nature of reality and truth: The shared assumptions that define what is real and what is not, what is a fact in the physical realm and the social realm, how truth is ultimately to be determined, and whether truth is revealed or discovered. 2. The nature of time: The shared assumptions that define the basic concept of time in the group, how time is defined and measured, how many kinds of time there are, and the importance of time in the' culture.

PAGE 32

22 3. The nature of space: The shared assumptions about space and its distribution, how space is allocated and owned, the symbolic meaning of space around the person, and the role of space in defining aspects of relationships, such as the degree of intimacy or definitions of privacy. 4. The nature of human nature: The shared assumptions that define what it means to be human and what human attributes are considered intrinsic or ultimate. Is human nature good, evil, or neutral? Are human beings perfectible or not? 5. The nature of human activity: The shared assumptions that define what is the right thing for human beings to do in relating to their environment on the basis of the foregoing assumptions about reality and the nature of human nature. . . . What is the relationship of the organization to its environment? What is work and what is play? 6. The nature of human relationships: The shared assumptions that define what is the ultimate right way for people to relate to each other, to distribute power and love. Is life cooperative or competitive, individualistic, group collaborative, or communal? . . . How should conflict be resolved and how should decisions be made? (pp. 95-96) Other researchers have also developed dimensions which guide their examination of culture. Chaffee and Tierney (1988) stated there were three themes that cut across their dimensions of cultures. The themes that are relevant to each dimension include (a) time--which is relevant as history, tradition, and habit influence the organization's and member's behavior; (b) space-which is a symbolic and actual context for action; and (c) communication--which serves as a vehicle through which members perceive and interpret their world. The overriding dimensions of organizational culture which evolved from Chaffee and Tierney's (1988) studies included the following: 1. The Environmental Dimension referred to the understanding the members of the organization develop about the nature of the organization's environment. 2. The Structural Dimension referred to the structure by which the organization accomplishes its activities, including programmatic, fiscal, and governance mechanisms. 3. The Values Dimension explored whether the organization's values were congruent with individual and subculture values. (p. 5

PAGE 33

23 Cameron and Ettington (1988) identified the following dimensions as the most commonly cited or potentially beneficial dimensions of culture in organizations: 1. Cultural strength (the power to control behavior); 2. Cultural congruence (the fit or homogeneity among cultural elements); 3. Cultural type (the focus on certain dominant themes); 4. Cultural continuity (the extent to which consistency in culture has been maintained over time); 5. Cultural distinctiveness (the uniqueness of the culture); 6. Cultural clarity (the extent to which the culture is unambiguously defined, understood, and presented). (pp. 364-365) Of these dimensions, the two that seemed to receive more attention and were most often cited as the most important dimensions were cultural strength and cultural congruence. Parsons (1960), Deal and Kennedy (1982), Peters and Waterman (1982), and Wilkins and Ouchi (1985) all stressed the importance of a strong culture to push the company forward. They also cited the importance of the cultural fit between the company mission and strategies used to achieve that mission. Deal and Kennedy (1983) proposed a two-by-two matrix, using a degreeof-risk dimension (low to high) and a speed-of-feedback dimension (low speed to high speed). They determined that any of the four types of culture could be appropriate for a given set of conditions. The four typologies are (a) process (low speed, low risk), (b) bet your company (low speed, high risk), (c) work hard/play hard (high speed, low risk), and (d) tough-guy/macho (high speed, high risk). When examining culture and planning, Ernest (1985) developed a two-by-two model using people's orientation (participative-nonparticipative) and response to the environment (reactive-proactive). He hypothesized that

PAGE 34

24 none of the four cultures were better than the others; however, organizations in specific fields should have similar cultures. The four cultural typologies he identified are interactive (participative-reactive), integrated (participativeproactive), systematized (nonparticipative-reactive), and entrepreneurial (nonparticipative-proactive). Other researchers have developed cultural typologies to classify institutions of higher education and faculty. They are presented later in this chapter. Examining the dimensions of culture allows us to see the important role culture plays in an organization. Culture provides stability for the purpose and social system, conveys a sense of identity for the organization, and serves as the sense-making device for members of the organization. Culture provides meaning and direction for the organization, which can be in a positive or negative direction. Culture represents the collective patterns of beliefs, norms, practices, values, and assumptions that guide the group and individuals and provides a frame of reference for interpreting behavior which occurs externally or internally to the group (Kuh and Whitt, 1988a). Understanding cultural concepts and identifying cultural attributes within an organization can assist the leaders of the organization in furthering the goals of the organization. Institutional Culture Culture is influenced by the people connected to the organization, outside challenges, its mission, and its history and origins (Clark, 1970; Schein, 1985). The culture of an institution of higher education is reflected in how it operates, what is done, and who does it. It is reflected in its decisions, actions, and communication, both at the symbolic and concrete levels. Understanding the cultural perspective of an institution assists members of the organization in understanding decisions, behavior, and its mission. Culture can also help

PAGE 35

25 different subcultures understand each other and reduce adversarial relationships (Tierney, 1988). There has been some disagreement about whether an institution of higher education can have one culture. Lindquist (1978) said that although American institutions have some deep-rooted values and structures, they were essentially decentralized organizations that did not have a sense of a common community. On the other hand, Dill (1982) described American institutions of higher education as "value-rational organizations with strong cultures, which can be described as ideologies and belief systems" (p. 303). The consensus among recent researchers has been that an institution can have an institutional culture, although it also has subcultures. It can also be part of a wider system culture. For example, Clark (1980) said an institution has three levels of culture. The culture of the enterprise was the specific culture of that institution, particularly present in liberal arts colleges. The culture of the academic profession as a national profession was also represented on campus, in addition to the culture of specific academic disciplines. He was relating institutional culture to different types of faculty culture, which was not that uncommon in the early analysis of culture. Researchers have approached the concept of organizational culture in higher education from different perspectives. Burton Clark (1970), one of the foremost researchers of higher education culture, first examined culture from the perspective of organizational sagas and legends. He also looked at it from the faculty perspective (1980, 1987a) and from the system point of view (1984b). Others have viewed the institutional culture from the academic perspective and examined faculty culture (Becher, 1981; Freedman, 1979; Ruscio, 1987) or related it to leadership (Bergquist, 1992; Chaffee & Tierney, 1988; Schein, 1985, 1992).

PAGE 36

26 The importance of an institution's history and mission in the development of its culture was emphasized in Clark's (1970) examination of institutional culture at Antioch, Reed and Swarthmore. He stressed the role legends and sagas play in relating the institutional mission and values to new members of the institution. He also identified five components necessary for leaders to build and maintain an institutional culture. 1. Personnel dedicated to the idea the leader proposes. 2. An academic program that is unique and related to the idea, with appropriate symbols and rituals. 3. A social base of outside constituents which are in support of the idea. 4. The integration of the student subculture into the institutional culture, through symbols and rituals. 5. A distinctive institutional ideology that permeates all levels of the institution. (pp. 250-255) Other researchers have also identified factors which influence the institutional culture. Kuh and Whitt (1988a) combined much of the research into seven factors they believed influence the culture. The history of the institution and external factors, such as being a state or private, religious affiliation, and social attitudes are important to culture. The academic program must also support the culture, as must a core group of personnel, usually faculty and lead administrators. The campus social environment will attract a particular type of student that will affect the institutional culture. Campus artifacts, observable manifestations of campus values and beliefs, are also important factors of the culture. These include both the physical environment (landscaping and architecture) and symbolic artifacts such as rites, rituals, and ceremonies. Institutions also have distinctive themes which make them unique, even though they may be a similar type of institution. This distinctiveness is usually more apparent in smaller institutions than in

PAGE 37

large comprehensive universities. The last factor Kuh and Whitt identified was the importance of individual actors on the institutional culture. Typically these individuals were presidents who had a profound impact on shaping the institutional culture or maintaining it. Through research involving reading historic and current institutional materials, observations, interviews, and an occasional survey, researchers have some general conclusions about institutional culture. One of the primary conclusions is that similar type institutions share a common culture and have common experiences (Birnbaum, 1988; Clark, 1985; Martin, 1985). A few researchers have categorized these qualities into specific college cultures. Martin (1985) cited three generic categories for college cultures. The research university culture was viewed as a "pathfinder and disseminator of new knowledge'Xp. 80). The comprehensive liberal arts college culture emphasized the institution's contributing to "vital connectedness between the development of the body, mind and spirit"(p. 80). The community college culture stressed the importance of the college serving as the center of "educational services" for the community (p. 80). Birnbaum (1988) took more of an administrative perspective and categorized institutions into four types: collegiate, bureaucratic, political, and anarchical. An in-depth analysis of institutional cultures was undertaken by Bergquist (1992) who separated institutions into four cultures. The "collegiate culture" described institutions that are directed toward disciplinary scholarship and research. The collegiate culture also values faculty autonomy, academic freedom, a collegial model of governance, and leaders who possess a vision and are politically astute. Bergquist surmised that the "managerial culture" grew out of Catholic institutions and community colleges. This culture values systematic and efficient methods of teaching and managing.

PAGE 38

28 formal lines of authority, and employs techniques adopted from the corporate world. A managerial culture emphasizes that education serves as a vehicle for upward mobility in society. The "developmental culture" combined some elements of the previously mentioned cultures but is more closely aligned with the managerial culture. A developmental culture values teaching and developing its students, faculty, and staff, although it also emphasizes planning, goal setting, and evaluation. This culture is viewed by some as having institutional values that are idealistic and politically naive. The "negotiating culture" evolved from unions and collective bargaining when other cultures could not meet the needs of their employees. The negotiating culture values equity and egalitarianism and more authority is given midlevel managers through the collective bargaining agreement. These four cultures examined the role of faculty, the educational program, the institution's structure and decision-making process, and institutional values in determining an institution's culture. Bergquist said that although there is a predominant culture on each campus, the other cultures are represented to some extent and interact with the dominant culture. This often occurs within campus subcultures, which is why it is important to study subcultures. Subcultures The culture of most organizations provides norms for its members; however, there are also subgroups that interact on a regular basis that provide standard ways of behaving. Thomas Lasswell (as cited in Arnold, 1970) pointed out that every group that is at all functional must have a culture of its own that is somewhat similar to the cultures of other groups with whom it interacts. Such a group culture is not partial or miniature, it is a complete, full-blown set of beliefs, knowledges, and ways for adjustment to the physical and social environment, (p. 4)

PAGE 39

These groups develop into subcultures which share common problems and experiences. Their interaction creates solutions to the problems and fosters the development of group norms and standards (Cohen, 1970). These subcultures may be related to occupational areas, organizational structure, or ethnic background and often develop a special language and meanings in their culture (Gregory, 1983; Van Maanen, 1979). Although there may be multiple subcultures within large organizations, they will usually share elements of the dominant culture and do not conflict with the organizational mission (Meyerson & Martin, 1987; Van Maanen & Barley, 1985). Subcultures have been defined differently by various scholars. Bolton and Kammeyer (1972) described subculture as "a normative value system held by some group or persons who are in persistent interaction, who transmit the norms and values to newcomers by some communicated process, and who exercise some sort of social control to ensure conformity to the norms. Furthermore, the normative value system of such a group must differ from the normative value system of the larger, the parent or the dominant society" (p. 381). In 1985, Van Maanen and Barley defined a subculture "as a subset of an organization's members who interact regularly with one another, identify themselves as a distinct group within the organization, share a set of problems commonly defined to be the problems of all, and routinely take actions on the basis of collective understandings unique to the group" (p. 38). Van Maanen and Barley (1984) further related subcultures to the organizational setting and talked about occupational communities. They defined an occupational community as a group of people who consider themselves to be engaged in the same sort of work; whose identity is drawn from the work; who share with one another a set of values, norms and perspectives that apply to but extend beyond work related matters; and whose social relationships meld work and leisure, (p. 287)

PAGE 40

They stated that the motivation for establishing occupational communities was the desire for occupational self control. The elements of an occupational community--defined boundaries, work-related social identity, shared values and meaning within the reference group, and work-oriented social relationsare influenced by the dominant organizational culture, the professionalism of the career, and the structure and management of the organization. For example, loyalty to the organization and management practices can diminish a subculture from meeting the criteria of an occupational community. The work culture of an occupational community was described by Van Maanen and Barley (1984) as having the following characteristics: 1. common meanings and knowledge; 2. integrated assumptions; 3. shared values, vocabularies, identities and occupational practices; 4. work as a source of meaning and value; 5. judgments based on occupational standards developed over time; 6. self-control over decisions within the occupation; i.e., membership, prescribed conduct, assessment. (p. 307-309) Culture can serve to support an occupational community, or it can decrease the self-control and prevent it from meeting the criteria of an occupational community. The types of subcultures within organizations have been the subject of a few scholars. Martin and Siehl (1983) identified three subcultures which can be identified when examining the dominant organization's artifacts and values. "Enhancing subcultures" are those who prescribe to the values of the dominant culture more enthusiastically than others. An "orthogonal subculture" would accept the values of the dominant culture but also prescribe

PAGE 41

31 to a particular set of values for themselves. Their third subculture is the "counterculture," whose core values are in conflict with the dominant culture's values. A more structural perspective was taken by Caudron (1992) who identified four possible subcultures in organizations: "functional, operating unit, hierarchical, and social" (p. 62). Functional subcultures develop around a particular occupation within the organization, such as accounting. Operating unit subcultures may exist in large organizations that have diverse operations, such as teaching and sales/marketing. Hierarchical subcultures may develop at various levels among people in similar positions. Social subcultures involve individuals from various places in the organization, but they share something in common and interact on a regular basis. Racial or ethnic groups may form a social subculture in an organization. Rather than look at structural subcultures, Sackmann (1992) examined subcultural differences in relation to organization members sharing different types of knowledge. All organizations do not have subcultures within them. The evolution of subcultures is a result of social processes within the development of an organization. Van Maanen and Barley (1985) identified six social processes that can produce subcultures within an organization. 1. "Segmentation" within the organization often occurs around specialization of skills or functional areas. 2. The "importation" of different cultures can occur with acquisitions and mergers. 3. "Technological innovation" can create subcultures around people with specific technical knowledge. 4. "Ideological differences," such as determining the appropriate methodology for the nature of work, can cause a schism which produces a subculture.

PAGE 42

32 5. The development of a "contra cultural movement" takes place when individuals feel marginalized by the organization and decide to resist and deny the dominant culture. 6. "Career filters" refers to the development of subcultures among people in similar positions, such as top management who learn to conform to prescribed behavior. (p. 38) Whether or not subcultures develop within an organization will depend upon the complexity, mission, and structure of the organization. The definition of subculture is still evolving, although most scholars have accepted Van Maanen and Barley's 1985 definition of a subculture as a distinct group of people who interact with one another on a regular basis, share a common set of problems, and act upon a collective and unique understanding. Numerous subcultures potentially exist within institutions of higher education (Becher, 1984; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a; Tierney, 1988). These groups include faculty, professional staff, clerical and technical staff, students, governing boards, and alumni. The primary subcultures identified by scholars are faculty, students, and administrators. Since this research is directed toward faculty and administrators, further review of the literature pertaining to these two groups follows. Faculty Subculture The faculty subculture within higher education has been the subject of more study than any other subculture in education. Faculty culture was often the primary measure of institutional culture in early cultural studies in higher education (Clark, 1970). The academic profession has been viewed both as a homogeneous profession and a compilation of many disciplinary subprofessions. Both perspectives are reviewed in this portion of Chapter 2. A Homogeneous Profession From the homogeneous perspective, Burton Clark (1984) wrote.

PAGE 43

33 Sweeping across all the fields and institutions, assumed by professors of biology, sociology, and classics alike, is the identity of 'academic man.' All such men and women, in the doctrines of the profession, are part of a single 'community of scholars,' sharing an interest that sets them apart from others, (p. 91) The origin of the academic profession in higher education in the United States certainly was one of the "academic man" espoused by Clark; however, it has evolved into a more diverse profession since the emergence of specialized academic disciplines. Clark (1987a) said this tie to the disciplines, plus the value of individualism and differentiation, created a profession which was pluralistic in nature. The idea that academic similarities outweigh differences to create a pluralistic common culture was also espoused by F. G. Bailey (1977). He wrote about the university as a "common culture" which is composed of several tribes (as cited in Clark, 1987b): Each tribe has a name and a territory, settles its own affairs, goes to war with others, has a distinct language or at least a distinct dialect and a variety of symbolic ways of demonstrating its apartness from others. Nevertheless, the whole set of tribes possess a common culture: their ways of construing the world and the people who live in it are sufficiently similar for them to be able to understand, more or less, each other's culture and even, when necessary, to communicate with members of other tribes. Universities possess a single culture which directs interactions between the many distinct and often mutually hostile groups, (p. 272) Bailey viewed one of the tribes in the university's common culture as the academic/faculty profession. Even though faculty may have some differences, there were more similarities within the faculty ranks than with other 'tribes' within the university. A single academic culture is based on the premise that faculty, regardless of discipline, share some basic beliefs and symbols. These have been identified as academic freedom, individual autonomy within the profession, collegial governance, seeking truth through knowledge, the

PAGE 44

34 importance of a community of scholars, the process of scientific inquiry, and service to society through the pursuit of knowledge and the transmission of knowledge and culture to the people (Clark, 1980; Morrill & Specs, 1982; Ruscio, 1987). Many researchers have addressed common values held by all faculty, regardless of their academic discipline. Some of the values espoused by different researchers are similar: (a) the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and truth (Austin, 1990; Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Clark, 1987a, 1987b; Graff & Wilson, 1971; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a), (b) autonomy and academic freedom in their work (Austin, 1990; Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Clark, 1987a, 1987b; Graff & Wilson, 1971; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a), (c) collegiality for interaction and decision making within the institution (Austin, 1990; Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Clark, 1987b; Graff & Wilson, 1971; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a), and (d) commitment to intellectual integrity and fairness (Austin, 1990; Clark, 1987a). These common beliefs, symbols, and values give credence to the view that there is one academic profession, no matter the academic discipline or institutional setting. It is said that faculty possess a world view which has similar beliefs about the nature and role of institutions of higher education and the faculty role within the institution (Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Freedman, 1979; Gusfield & Riesman, 1968; Ruscio, 1987). A common set of values and beliefs is one of the criteria for a common culture within an organization or group. Therefore, some academicians assert there is one academic/faculty culture within higher education. Disciplinary Subcultures The alternative perspective is that the differences among the academic disciplines are more significant than the similarities; hence, there is no one academic/faculty culture. Donald Light (1974) wrote.

PAGE 45

35 The "academic profession" does not exist. In the world of scholarship, the activities . . . center on each discipline. Thus, theoretically at least, we have the academic professions, one for each discipline. Each discipline has its own history, its own intellectual style, a distinct sense of timing, different preferences for articles and books, and different career lines, (p. 12) Although faculty at most institutions of higher education teach, complete research, and provide service to their profession and society, they do so within the framework of their academic discipline. Each discipline is composed of people who have similar ways of thinking and possesses their own conduct codes, values, and distinctive intellectual tasks, and methods (Becher, 1981). Tierney and Rhoads (1993) wrote that faculty are influenced by various sociological forces which produce different cultural groups to which each belongs: national culture, professional culture, institutional culture, and individual cultural differences, such as gender, race, and the like. Other researchers have taken a more narrow view that faculty are working in an environment of competing cultures: the culture of the academic profession, the culture of the discipline, the culture of the academy as an organization, and the culture of the institutional type (Austin, 1990). The competition among three of these cultures, the academic profession, the discipline, and the institutional type, determine the activities and the beliefs of the faculty member. The disciplinary culture is the primary source of faculty identity and expertise and is the first culture with which the prospective faculty member has contact; hence, there is a stronger bond with the disciplinary culture than with the institutional or academy cultures (Blau, 1973; Clark, 1984b; Morrill & Specs, 1982; Ruscio, 1987). This socialization process begins in graduate school when graduate students are assigned to faculty and try to emulate their professors and continues into their first faculty appointment (Bess, 1978; Freedman, 1979; Reisman, Gusfield, & Gamson, 1970). Clark (1987a)

PAGE 46

wrote that "each discipline has a knowledge tradition—categories of thought— and related codes of conduct . . . there is in each field a way of life into which new members are gradually inducted" (p. 76). These different languages, mores, and methods of learning and research within the disciplines create different subcultures within the academic profession (Austin, 1990; Becher, 1981; Bess, 1982; Clark, 1987a; Ruscio, 1987; Tierney & Rhoads, 1993). Becher conducted one of the foremost studies on academic discipline subcultures in 1981 when he interviewed faculty in four discipline groupings. His results show that the four general groupings (pure science, humanities, technologies and applied social sciences) approached the nature of knowledge quite differently and possessed different disciplinary cultures. The pure sciences group viewed knowledge as cumulative and were concerned with universal explanations and discoveries. Their disciplinary culture was competitive, politically well-organized, taskoriented, and valued large numbers of publications. The humanities group took as reiterative and holistic perspective of knowledge that examined particular qualities and resulted in developing understandings and interpretations. Their disciplinary culture was loosely structured, individualistic, person-oriented and did not particularly value a high publication rate. The technologies group approached knowledge from a purposive and pragmatic perspective that resulted in products and patents. Their disciplinary culture was entrepreneurial, role-oriented, and dominated by the values of the particular profession. The applied social sciences group approached knowledge from a functional and utilitarian perspective concerned with professional practices and protocols. Their disciplinary culture was uncertain of their status and looking outward toward consultancies, and was somewhat power-oriented.

PAGE 47

Gaff and Wilson (1971) also emphasized the need to examine the cultural aspects of faculty's educational values, teaching orientations, and lifestyles. In their study they established four groupings for faculty (humanities, social science, natural science, and professional/applied) which were similar to Becher's. They found that significant differences do exist among the groups in relation to their values, teaching orientations, and lifestyles. Although a "broad general education" was favored by 61% of the faculty as the premier value and goal of higher education, it was only the primary choice among the social scientists. Humanities professors favored "self-knowledge," and the natural science and professional faculty favored "career preparation." The social science and humanities faculty also tended to be more permissive and have a more liberal orientation than faculty in the natural science and professional fields. One commonality was that all indicated their major source of satisfaction was teaching (88%), and 79% said family relationships ranked second. The third ranked choice differed according to grouping. Social science and natural science faculty chose scholarly pursuits (71%) as their next highest satisfaction, whereas professional faculty chose leisure time and recreational activities as their third choice of satisfaction. Humanity faculty were unique in that their second choice of satisfaction was literature, art, or music (86%) and family relationships came in third at 72%. This study showed some commonalties among the four groups of faculty, but it also pointed out the basic differences within the faculty that must be recognized in an institution. Biglan (1973) proposed a three-dimensional model to differentiate among academic disciplines at various types of institutions. The "pureapplied" dimension identified the type of application to practical problems. The "hard-soft" dimension identified whether or not there was consensus on a

PAGE 48

38 body of theory. The "life-nonlife" dimension identified whether or not there was research on living systems. This model was used by Creswell and Bean (1981) to study professional goals, tasks, and job satisfaction. They discovered that faculty groupings along these three dimensions did differ in their goals, tasks, and job satisfaction. One of the other primary typologies of disciplinary culture was developed by Burton Clark (1963, 1980). He proposed three dimensions of faculty orientation: (a) humanistic-scientific, which emphasized the commitment to individual interpretation and public verification of knowledge; (b) pure-applied, which emphasized the use of knowledge; and (c) localcosmopolitan, which emphasized a commitment to the discipline and the institution. Clark then analyzed the interactions of these orientations to categorize faculty subgroups. The "teacher" showed a high identification with the institution and a high commitment to pure study. The "demonstrator" exhibited a high identification with the institution and with low commitment to pure study. The "scholar-researcher" exhibited low institutional identification and high commitment to pure study. The "consultant" exhibited low institutional identification and low commitment to pure study. The disciplinary cultures are also affected by the type of institution in which they exist. The missions of the institutions have a tremendous effect on the type of faculty recruited, their responsibilities, the socialization process, and the performance standards (Clark, 1963; Ruscio, 1987). Austin (1990) wrote that faculty in similar kinds of institutions share similar experiences: 1. Research Universities-Faculty are closely aligned to their discipline because of the emphasis on research. 2. State Colleges-The heavy teaching load prevents a strong research affiliation, which can be a conflict for faculty. 3. Liberal Arts Colleges-The commitment is to teaching.

PAGE 49

39 4. Community Colleges-The value is on individuals and the teaching/learning process. (p. 67) The type of institution affects faculty culture, but so does the size and complexity of the institution. Faculty at larger and more complex institutions often have more subcultures than those at smaller, homogeneous colleges (Clark, 1963, 1984b). These subcultures may be along disciplinary lines but may also be along other common aspects, such as gender, race, and status (Ruscio, 1987; Tiemey & Rhoads, 1993). Institutional affiliation may cause difficulty for faculty who have been socialized and trained for one role and end up in a position that emphasizes different responsibilities. For example, someone trained in graduate school to be a researcher who then obtains an appointment with a liberal arts college may experience conflict. Freedman's (1979) study with three institutions' faculty showed some of the conflict and characteristics of faculty at three types of institutions. The faculty at the liberal arts college had more women on faculty (50%), placed little emphasis on research/publication and professional activities, and were also less innovative in their teaching methods. They viewed themselves as developmentalists, emphasizing the development of their students. The state university faculty more highly valued research skills in selecting faculty colleagues (81%) but acknowledged that 54% of their time was spent teaching and only 10% spent on research. They were heavily involved in professional organizations and viewed themselves as "professionalistic." The research institution obviously placed more emphasis on research in the selection and evaluation of faculty. Only 9% said teaching was important for selection, and 28% said it was an important criteria for tenure and promotion. Faculty seemed isolated from colleagues

PAGE 50

and the institution since they worked independently and often reported being dissatisfied with their role. The importance of congruence between institutional type and faculty skills and priorities was also emphasized by Clark (1987a). He surmised that a research institution's "ideal academic" would be a nationally known researcher/scholar who could teach. The "ideal academic" for a comprehensive college would be someone who is an excellent teacher who also does research or stays current with the field. The community college "ideal academic" would be someone who can excite students to learn and is student oriented. Related to institutional type is the influence administration has on faculty culture. In institutions which have a strong "management temperament," faculty tend to be less involved in decision making and may exhibit a weaker faculty culture. In institutions which have the history of a strong "academic temperament," faculty are extremely involved in the decision making and governance of the institution. These institutions tend to have a strong academic culture, particularly disciplinary cultures because the power may be held at the departmental level (Ruscio, 1987). Although Clark attributed generalized characteristics to faculty at specific types of institutions, he also emphasized the differences among the academic disciplines. As far back as 1963, Clark wrote: It was around the disciplines that faculty subcultures increasingly form. As the work and the points of view get more specialized, men in different disciplines have fewer things in common, in their background and their daily problems. They have less impulse to interact with one another and less ability to do so. The differences among the academic disciplines necessitate that researchers consider this diversity when studying the academic profession (Becher, 1987; Biglan, 1973). There is, however, a question as to whether or not disciplinary

PAGE 51

41 dimensions truly meet the definition of a subculture. It could be proposed that each of these subgroups is really a grouping of similar personality types or ideal academic types. Each of these disciplinary groups can be further divided by smaller homogeneous groups, such as gender, race, and contractual status (Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Kuh & Whitt, 1988a; Ruscio, 1987; Tiemey & Rhoads, 1993). These specialty groups of women, people of color, and part-time faculty may or may not be considered a subculture, depending on the definition one uses for a subculture. They do indeed share common problems which often lead to shared interactions, but do they share a distinct identity, regular interaction, and common understandings apparent in subcultures? The same question could be posed for disciplinary groupings. Student Affairs Subculture Student affairs staff have been part of the administrative culture in institutions of higher education since the 1870s when staff were appointed to serve as dean of men, replacing faculty in those positions. Their primary role was that of disciplinarian; however, that soon broadened to cover all aspects of the students' lives outside of the classroom. The student affairs profession has evolved to staff performing many of the student development and academic support functions in institutions of higher education. Student affairs personnel has also been central to the role of moral education in institutions of higher education (Sandeen, 1985). Student Affairs Values Although student affairs work is now an integral part of most institutions of higher education, little research has been done on the cultural aspect of student affairs (Kuh & Whitt, 1988a; Love, Kuh, MacKay, & Hardy, 1993). The practical orientation of the student affairs profession also has resulted in little research on the profession's values, basic assumptions, or

PAGE 52

42 philosophy. There are no generally accepted philosophy or values which have been accepted by student affairs personnel, although a number of researchers and authors have used three basic documents in the profession as guiding principles. Stamatakos and Rogers (1984) compared the revised The Student Personnel Point of View (Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education, 1949) and the Student Development Services in Post Secondary Education (Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education, 1975) to determine if there was a common philosophy in the student affairs profession. These two documents, which had been written by leaders in the profession, contained some commonalties in their views on the basic principles and values and the profession's identity. The two documents did not show any commonalties in describing the roles and functions of the profession, although that may be related to the 26 year time period between the origin of the two documents. The basic premises or principles of the profession which were mentioned in both documents included the ideas that (a) the total development of the student was a paramount goal in higher education; (b) students must be active participants in their own growth and development; and (c) learning involves both the curricular and cocurricular experiences. Stamatakos and Rogers (1984) also found a few common values in the two documents. The only common value in the views on higher education was the importance of the development of the individual; however, both documents viewed the student from a holistic perspective, valuing individual differences and the development of a well-rounded individual. Regarding the learning process, both documents stressed involving the student as an active participant in in-class and out-of-class learning opportunities that involved both individual and group activities. The two documents stressed different

PAGE 53

perspectives on a professional identity; however, there were a few commonalties. Stamatakos and Rogers stated that both documents said that student personnel staff were "administrators and educators who were committed to the holistic development of the student" (p. 409). The documents also stressed that staff needed to possess knowledge and show competence in the behavioral sciences, administrative skills, and instructional skills. The commonalties in these two documents presented a general view of some basic premises within the student affairs profession. On the 50th anniversary of the original 1937 The Student Personnel Point of View, the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators convened a task force to reexamine the original document and identify the essential beliefs and purposes of the profession today. This 1987 committee was chaired by Arthur Sandeen and released A Perspective on Student Affairs . This document identified the following basic assumptions and beliefs that exemplify the student affairs profession: 1. The academic mission of the institution is preeminent. 2. Each student in unique. 3. Each person has worth and dignity. 4. Bigotry cannot be tolerated. 5. Feelings affect thinking and learning. 6. Student involvement enhances learning. 7. Personal circumstances affect learning. 8. Out-of-class environments affect learning. 9. A supportive and friendly community life helps students learn. 10. The freedom to doubt and question must be guaranteed. 11. Effective citizenship should be taught.

PAGE 54

44 12. Students are responsible for their own lives. (NASPA, 1987, pp. 9-12) These basic beliefs help to determine the roles student affairs staff play in institutions of higher education. Although institutions may be very different, student affairs personnel across the United States are involved in similar activities to support the mission of the institution and the students. The NASPA document (1987) identified 16 activities student affairs staff perform toward the institutional mission by serving as the liaison between students and the institution and providing services and programs to the institution. The document also identified 12 functions student affairs staff provide in programs and services to assist students in their development, their transition to the institution, and during their stay with the institution. Although this document is general in its list of activities within the institution, it shows the connection between the academic mission and student affairs. It also shows the balance that student affairs staff tries to reach in advocating for a sense of community while stressing individual rights and in encouraging independent thought while teaching interdependence. Kuh, Shedd, and Whitt (1987) wrote about student affairs values from an organizational perspective. Among the prime values they saw was the importance of holistic student development, focusing on both the basic and higher order needs of students. They also perceived that student affairs staff valued collaboration over autonomy and stressed the importance of teamwork within a hierarchical structure. The fourth prime value was that of "doing" rather than thinking or reflecting. Student affairs personnel were seen as doers who worked together to meet the holistic needs of the students. One study did compare the values of student affairs and academic affairs administrators. Dickerson-Gifford's 1990 dissertation showed that there were

PAGE 55

45 common values between the two subcultures. The values they had in common at the top of both lists included (1) community, (2) intellectual orientation, and (3) academic development. The student affairs administrators also highly ranked other values related to student development, such as individual personal development, intellect/aesthetic environment, and freedom. In 1991, Winston and Saunders addressed the philosophy of student affairs. They determined there were no basic values within the profession; however, there were philosophical traditions within student affairs. Winston and Saunders identified four philosophical traditions within student affairs literature: holism (the student is a whole person), humanism (belief in human rationality, the values of self-awareness and self-understanding), pragmatism (making things work), and individualism (recognition of and appreciation for individual differences in backgrounds, abilities, interests, and goals). Although various researchers in student personnel claim there are no common values within the profession. Young and Elkrink (1991) summarized eight essential values held by a high percentage of the student affairs personnel they surveyed. The values identified in their survey included altruism, equality, aesthetics, freedom, human dignity, justice, truth, and community. Young then used these eight values in analyzing documents within the student affairs profession to determine their historical significance in the field. In 1993, Young wrote that the writings supported the notion that there are three all-encompassing values within the student affairs profession, with subordinate values within the general categories. The first primary value, human dignity, was defined as the inherent worth and uniqueness of an individual. Young postulated that human dignity was dependent upon the subordinate values of freedom, truth, and altruism on the part of student affairs professionals. The second overall value in student

PAGE 56

46 affairs was equality, both for individuals and for different abilities. This has evolved from a focus on individuals to an emphasis on groups in recent years. Young's third overall value in the profession was community, which included the empowerment of students through the campus community and their relationship to it. This included the value of justice among the community members and the sense of belonging and importance that a community can provide it's members. . The values espoused by student affairs professionals have changed as the nature of higher educational institutions have changed. As the student body has become more diverse, the profession has moved its focus from the individual to groups of individuals. Likewise, as society is becoming more complex and people are expressing a loss of community within the neighborhoods and cities, student affairs is talking more about the need for community within the institution. Administrative Culture The numbers of managers and administrators in institutions of higher education in the United States are growing as the size of the institutions grow. Administrators have also become more specialized in their responsibilities and their primary identity may be with professional organizations instead of the institution (Levinson, 1989; Scott, 1978). This is very similar to the trend in the academic division of an institution. Student affairs professionals are similarly becoming more specialized, especially on large campuses. There are professional organizations for subspecialties within student affairs, such as student judicial affairs, financial aid, career planning and placement, orientation, housing, student activities, campus recreation, and counseling. Staff may feel closer to the specialty area than with the student affairs

PAGE 57

47 profession or the specific institution, causing different perspectives within student affairs staff in each institution (Love, et al., 1993). Love (1990) performed a cultural study of a residence life department to determine some of the dominant characteristics of the organization's culture. He discovered that the culture was evident by examining individual and departmental transitions and conflicts. The conflicts within the department were not necessarily the result of different values or basic assumptions but more often related to a specific situation. The predominant values and assumptions he discovered in this particular residence administration department included: (a) commitment to student service, (b) staff autonomy, (c) accessibility to students, (d) the acceptance of ideas from anyone in the organization, (e) change/innovation is good, and (f) avoidance of conflict among the staff (Love, 1990). The values of other departments, even at the same institution, may have different values because of personnel, purpose, and members. Besides specialty areas, student affairs staff may have experienced different cultures because of the institutional size. Student affairs divisions within small institutions may have a more cohesive organizational culture than student affairs divisions in large institutions. This result has been attributed to low financial support which prohibited much interaction with professional organizations or because small institutions employed more generalists who did a variety of student affairs functions (Goffigon, Lacey, Wright, & Kuh, 1986). The amount of contact student affairs staff have with students also impacted the culture of the division. Small institutions may have stressed frequent contact between students and staff, thereby creating an environment that was perceived as more nurturing and caring (McAleenan & Kuh, 1986).

PAGE 58

48 Although size of the institution may have been a factor in the culture within student affairs, it has not played a role in the socialization of new student affairs professionals. Schein (1992) and Oblander (1990) said the socialization of new professionals into the organization could provide an important clue about the organization's culture. Oblander (1990) found that the socialization of new student affairs staff was independent of their graduate preparation program, the type of institution, and their job responsibilities. New staff began to form their expectations and beliefs about the institution during the recruitment and interview process; however, they had a difficult time identifying the rituals and meanings of everyday activities within the organization. It was also discovered that established members of the student affairs division did not view the socialization of new members as an intentional process (Orlander, 1990). Overall, the socialization on new professionals was a confusing and unintentional process for most of the new professionals. Although the socialization process may be confusing, new professionals may be more aware of the organization's culture than long-term administrators. Billups' (1991) study of college administrators' perception of organizational culture revealed that those who had been a member of the organization for less than 5 years were more aware of the cultural attributes than administrators employed in the organization for 10 or more years. Billups found that college administrators valued "a sense of belonging, a sense of community, mutual respect and cooperation, affiliation across campus subgroups, and a sense of making a contribution to the organization" (p. 108). Although administrators viewed themselves as important to achieving the institution's mission, they acknowledged that administrators were incidental to the primary functions of teaching and research. Administrators saw

PAGE 59

themselves as members of the culture but not creators of the institutions' culture. Because they felt isolated from interactions with faculty and students, most administrators sought affiliation and professional development from their professional organizations. Administrators often viewed themselves, and were viewed by faculty, as second-class citizens in the institution (Bess, 1982; Plante, 1990). In response to this class structure administrators interacted with other administrators and created a subculture within the institution to give meaning and relevance to their work and day-to-day activities. Researching Organizational Culture Researchers from sociology, anthropology, organizational development, and psychology have studied organizational culture from a variety of perspectives. Some (Bergquist, 1992; Clark, 1970) have taken the global approach in looking at the entire organization, while others (Becher, 1981; Love, 1990) have stressed the importance of departments or subcultures in understanding the organization. Other researchers have emphasized the language used in the organization. Some examine sagas or legends in the organization as a means of analyzing the culture. Qualitative and quantitative methods of gathering data have been used by researchers. One of the difficulties in studying organizational culture has been that the basic beliefs and assumptions which comprise culture are not overtly stated in the organization. Manifestations of culture (artifacts, behaviors, espoused values) are observable, but these are based on basic assumptions and values which are common to the organization, but often unspoken (Sackmann, 1991; Schein, 1985). Quantitative researchers, primarily from the disciplines of organizational theory and management, have emphasized the importance of

PAGE 60

" ' 50 quantifiable data that can be compared to different populations. The ability to assess and compare cross-sectional data, the replicability of the assessment, and a common frame of reference for analyzing the data are advantages for using questionnaires and surveys to measure organizational culture (Sackmann, 1991). This method works well when analyzing a particular aspect of culture. Chaffee and Tierney (1988) utilized the Institutional Performance Survey in examining institutional cultures. Cooke and Lafferty (1987) developed the Or ganizational Culture Inventory to measure normative behavior in organizations. This inventory has been used by numerous companies and consultants in examining the norms and expectations associated with culture. Sashkin (1990) developed the Organizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire which measures the beliefs held by members of the organization. Other researchers have used institutional climate or goals questionnaire* to measure aspects of organizational culture. DickersonGifford (1990) used the Institutional Goals Inventory to measure what educational administrators thought were the institutional values in their institution. The negative side of using quantitative methods is that the instrument's language or concepts may not be congruent with that of the organization. Most of the instruments were developed for business corporations and may not be transferable to community agencies, educational institutions, and volunteer organizations. The instruments are also narrow in their focus, by necessity, and may not truly measure culture but a manifestation of culture. Qualitative research methods have been the predominant means of studying organizational culture. It has been used by most sociologists and anthropologists; however, some organizational development specialists also have used qualitative methods. The methods for data collection can include

PAGE 61

51 individual interviews, group interviews, document analysis, artifact collection, observations, analysis of rites and rituals, and analysis of sagas and legends. Although the methods of qualitative research vary, there are eight common principles within this form of research (Whitt, 1991). 1. The first principle involves the objective of "understanding" the phenomena being studied rather than trying to generalize or identify cause and effect as in quantitative research. 2. Qualitative research attempts to understand the object of the study through the participants' perspective. 3. The third principle involves "fieldwork" where the researcher goes to the natural setting and immerses him/herself in the environment of the participant. 4. Qualitative research takes a holistic perspective in viewing the phenomena as a whole system rather than breaking it into parts as in quantitative research. 5. Another principle places importance on understanding the unique contextual setting of the object of study. This context sensitivity prevents generalizing from one setting to another. 6. The sixth important principle is the use of inductive rather than deductive reasoning in analyzing the data. Inductive data analysis allows the researcher to utilize data from all areas before drawing conclusions. 7. Another importance aspect of qualitative methodology is the element of a human researcher who uses judgment, intuition, and knowledge in drawing, collecting, and analyzing information.

PAGE 62

8. The last principle is the acknowledgment that qualitative research is value-laden rather than value-free. The values of the researcher are part of the process and although they can be offset, they can not be eradicated. The basic axioms of naturalistic inquiry influence how the research of the context being studied is carried out (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The first belief is that realities found in naturalistic research are multiple and holistic in nature and constructed by the situation. Another axiom is that the knower (individual involved in the situation) and the known are inseparable and interactive. Naturalistic research describes the particular time and setting and cannot be generalized to the larger society. Another basic belief is that it is difficult to distinguish cause and effect because all entities are mutually and simultaneously shaping the situation. The last axiom is that values of the researcher and the organization and/or subjects are interwoven within the study and can not be removed. The study of culture, in societies and organizations, has predominantly been qualitative in nature because of the fluid and contextual nature of culture. Geertz (1973) described the analysis of culture as a search for meaning through interpretation of events, language, and practices. Pettigrew (1979) also suggested that interpretation was the key to understanding culture. He suggested that the concepts with which a researcher had to become knowledgeable included symbols, language, ideology, myths, rituals, and beliefs. Interpretation lends itself to asking questions, such as "why?" or "how?", which are particularly suited to qualitative research (Merriam, 1988). Qualitative or ethnographic methodologies stress the importance of thick description of the organization or event, from which meaning can be interpreted. It is suggested that qualitative methods be triangulated to add credibility to the trustworthiness of the process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Schein,

PAGE 63

53 1992; Tierney, 1988; Van Maanen, 1979). Triangulation involves using various types of data collection and comparing results. It is also suggested that data collection and data analysis occur simultaneously so that a higher degree of understanding can happen in a shorter data collection period.

PAGE 64

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This chapter explains the research methodology used in this study. The research questions and research sample of this study are then described. In conclusion, the data collection methods utilized in this study are explained, followed by the methodology used for data analysis. Design of the Study The study used the theoretical construct of organizational culture to explain how academic affairs and student affairs divisions operate. This study utilized both qualitative and quantitative research methods to assess and compare the organizational culture of academic affairs and student affairs divisions at three institutions of higher education within the southeastern United States. The utilization of both research methods provided a cross reference for the data collected and broadened the triangulation which was recommended as a means of insuring trustworthiness. The research methods utilized in this study have been used in consultations with corporations and public school systems, but this was the first time with subcultures in higher education. Research Ouestions The study addressed the issue of organizational culture within student affairs and academic affairs divisions from an inductive data analysis perspective. Since so little was known about organizational culture in academic affairs administration and student affairs administration, the research questions identified areas in which to gather information. The 54

PAGE 65

55 following research questions served as guides to structure the collection of data and the analysis of that data. 1. What are the shared assumptions, values, and beliefs among administrators in student affairs divisions and in academic affairs divisions on each campus? 2. What are the similarities and differences between the organizational culture of academic affairs administrators and the organizational culture of student affairs administrators on each campus? 3. What are the similarities and differences among the three institutions' student affairs administrative subculture? 4. What are the similarities and differences among the three institutions' academic affairs administrative subculture? 5. Is there a common organizational culture among student affairs administrative divisions, even though they may be situated in different types of institutions? 6. Is there a common organizational culture among academic affairs administrative divisions, even though they may be situated in different types of institutions? Population Three institutions of higher education in the southeast were selected for participation in this study. Only institutions which awarded a baccalaureate degree or higher degree were selected so there would be commonalty in the institutional structure and mission. The three institutions represented a statesupported research institution, a state-supported urban commuter institution, and a small private undergraduate residential college. The administrators involved in the study included full-time professional staff who were within

PAGE 66

two administrative levels of the vice president or dean in the institution's academic affairs and student affairs divisions. Alpha College in Florida was a small private institution which emphasized a liberal arts undergraduate education, although it did have a few master's degree programs. The college served a student population of 3,500 students, with 77% of the students living on-campus. The student affairs division was composed of 16 full-time professional staff in 6 departments under the Dean of Students authority. The Dean of the Faculty at Alpha College was responsible for the primary academic functions in the undergraduate curriculum and was equivalent to the Dean of Student Affairs. The Dean of the Faculty was responsible for 23 academic departments, 10 academic programs, 5 academic support departments, and an assistant dean. Both the Dean of Faculty and the Dean of Student Affairs reported to the Academic Vice President and Provost in the institution's organizational structure. Gamma University was the oldest state institution in the state and was located in its capitol city. The university had 26,700 enrolled students, with approximately 10,000 of those being graduate students. It housed 45% of the student population in on-campus housing, and the majority of other students lived in reasonable proximity to the campus. Gamma University was considered a comprehensive university, offering 80 undergraduate and 30 graduate majors. The academic affairs division included 6 professional staff in the vice president/provost office, 15 deans and associate deans, 16 directors of academic support departments, and approximately 50 academic department chairs. The student affairs division was composed of 4 professional staff in the vice president's office, 4 directors with supervisory and divisional responsibilities, and 20 department heads.

PAGE 67

57 The third institution was Beta State University, located in a large metropolitan area in a southeastern state. Beta State University was primarily a commuter institution serving a culturally diverse metropolitan area. Although the institution had branch campuses, this study only explored the organizational culture on the main campus, which enrolled 16,000 students. Beta State University offered both undergraduate and graduate degrees although the large majority of the students were enrolled in an undergraduate program. The academic affairs division was composed of a provost, 2 associate vice-presidents, and a vice president for the primary campus, all of whom provided leadership to 6 support departments and 9 academic colleges. The student affairs division was led by the vice president and 2 deans. The division consisted of 14 administrative departments. Research Procedures In April, 1995, telephone calls were made to the vice presidents for student affairs at two state institutions and two private institutions in the southeastern United States. This was the first attempt to access institutions for this study. The vice president at the large private institution and the commuter state institution refused the request. Similar requests were extended sequentially to the vice president at three state commuter institutions before a vice president for student affairs granted permission. The vice president for student affairs at the large residential research institution (Gamma University), the medium size state commuter institution (Beta State University) and the private institution (Alpha College) then made the initial contact with the provost to inform him of the potential research project. In June and July, 1995, letters were sent to the provost explaining the purpose of the research. A follow-up telephone conversation with the provost explained the project, details of the research, and the support that would be necessary from the

PAGE 68

58 institution. By the beginning of August, 1995, the vice presidents of student affairs and academic affairs at each of the three institutions had agreed to participate in the research. Each of vice presidents assigned a liaison person from within the division to work with the researcher. In August, 1995 the researcher contacted each liaison with specific requests for information. The divisional liaison provided the researcher with a list of all full-time administrators who were within two levels of the divisional vice president. This list included each staff member's name, campus address, title, gender, race, and years of service at the institution. General information about the divisions, such as organizational charts, mission statements, goals, and rules and procedure manuals were also requested. In September, 1995, each of the administrators within two reporting levels of the vice president for student affairs and the provost/vice president for academic affairs were sent a cover letter introducing the study, an Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire ( OCAO ) to complete, and a return-addressed stamped envelope. A total of 246 questionnaires were mailed to administrators. Individuals who did not return the questionnaire by October were sent a reminder postcard. Data collection also involved spending 5 days on each campus to interview administrators within each division. The researcher was at Gamma University from October 30, 1995, through November 3, 1995, to interview administrators. The visit to Alpha College was from November 13 through November 17, 1995. Interviews were conducted at Beta State University from December 4 though December 8, 1995. Seven to nine individuals within the academic affairs division and student affairs division were interviewed regarding their perceptions of the administrative culture within their division. Individuals were selected in consultation with the liaison in each

PAGE 69

division. Whenever possible, individuals were selected to represent different administrative levels and departments within the division, each gender, and various ethnic groups. In addition to these one-on-one interviews, a group of administrators who had been in the division less than 6 years were asked to participate in a group discussion about cultural artifacts found in their division. Two to five administrators from each division participated in separate 90to 120-minute group discussions about the culture they discovered upon their entrance to the academic affairs division or student affairs division within the institution. Prior to the OCAQ being distributed to the administrators on the three campuses, the questionnaire was piloted to colleagues in student affairs and academic affairs to ensure it was understandable. The interview format was also piloted to administrators in each division. These pilot interviews enabled appropriate changes in the interview format to gather clearer data on the elements of organizational culture being explored: values, normative behavior, managing change, teamwork and relationships within the organization, customer orientation, goal achievement, and cultural strength. Quantitative Research Methodology The Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire ( QCAQ ) was designed to measure the way people within the organization think and act (Sashkin, 1990). The theoretical constructs of the questionnaire were based on the sociological work of Talcott Parsons who studied the structures of organizations in modern societies. One of Parsons' (1960) primary works was Structure and Process in Mode m Societies in which he focused on the characteristics and functions of modern organizations in the United States. He theorized that organizations are social systems which have specific functions

PAGE 70

60 that guide its purpose, functions, and relations with the larger society. Parsons stated that all organizations are subunits within the broader societal structure that contribute to the functioning of society or the organization will not maintain itself. Parsons described an organization's culture as having four characteristics or functions which are always present. The primary characteristic is a system of values which defines the primary functions of the organization. The three primary functions which are defined by the values include the ability of the organization to attain the established goals, the ability to adapt to a given situation, and the integration of the system to the rest of society. The values of the organization are the primary reference point from which to examine an organization. The organizational values also define their relationship to the comprehensive social system and provide guidance for the other organizational functions (Parsons, 1960). The function of attaining the organization's goals is carried out by institutionalized procedures which are designed to enable the organization to reach the prescribed goals. The function of adaptation is related to the organization's ability to mobilize its resources and adjust to changes in the goals. The integration function pertains to the organization's patterns of relationships and commitment within the organization and to the larger society (Parsons, 1960). Sashkin (1990) used the social organization theory espoused by Parsons as the basis for his Or ganizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire . He expanded on the basic four characteristics and functions and added a fifth function, customer orientation. The five cultural element subscores measured by the OCAQ are explained below: 1. Managing Change--This first scale is equivalent to Parson's adaptation function and assesses the degree to which members of the

PAGE 71

61 organization see the organization as effective in adapting to and managing change. 2. Achieving Goals--The second scale. Achieving Goals, measures how effective the organization is in achieving goals, the extent to which there are shared goals, and the degree to which these goals support improvement. 3. Coordinated Teamwork-Scale III, pertains to Parson's integration function since it assesses the extent to which the organization is effective in coordinating the work of individuals and groups and the extent to which collaboration is present. 4. Customer Orientation--This scale assesses the extent to which organizational activities are directed toward identifying and meeting the needs and goals of clients and customers 5. Cultural Strength-Scale V relates to Parson's values characteristic. This scale assesses the strength of the organization's culture by asking respondents to report on the extent to which people agree on values. The QCAQ has scores for each of the five cultural element scales. The scores are based on six questions in each category, including at least one reverse question in each category. The questionnaire uses a 5-point Likert scale. For each of the 30 statements the respondent marks (5) completely true, (4) mostly true, (3) partly true, (2) slightly true, and (1) not true. The range for each subscore can be from 6 to 30 points. Although the normative samples on the OG^ are relatively small, Sashkin has established ranges for each of the cultural elements. Table 1 shows five ranges for each of the cultural elements, although they are not normed on higher education institutions. Sashkin (1990) cautioned against putting too much emphasis on the numbers but urged researchers to use the scoring on the cultural elements as an indication of how the organization is functioning rather than assessing

PAGE 72

it's strength in a particular cultural element. He emphasized more research would be needed to have an in-depth cultural assessment of an organization. Table 1 OCAO Normative Ranges for the Cultural Element Subscores Range Managing Change Achieving Goals Coordinated Teamwork Customer Orientation Cultural Strength very high 30 28-30 28-30 25-30 26-30 high 26-29 23-27 24-27 21-24 22-25 average 19-25 16-22 18-23 15-20 17-21 low 15-18 11-15 14-17 11-14 13-16 very low 6-14 6-10 6-13 6-10 6-12 Sashkin developed the OCAO in 1990 and has revised the questionnaire to the 1993 current form. The instrument has been used in various types of organizations by educational researchers and organizational consultants. Sashkin, Rosenbach, and Mueller (1994) used the questionnaire to explore the relationship between leadership, organizational culture, and performance in an Australian banking corporation. Endeman (1993) used a version of it to assess culture in relation to superintendent's leadership styles. Principals and their school cultures was the focus of a study by Sashkin and Sashkin (1993) in which a version of the questionnaire was utilized, in conjunction with other research instruments. Giese (1995) used the OCAO in his study of culture and shared governance in California community colleges. He modified the

PAGE 73

questionnaire's statements to reflect higher education institutions, although the essence of the statements did not change. Giese's (1995) pilot study of the modified instrument showed a reliability correlation coefficient of .89, using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation. This showed a strong reliability index for the questionnaire. Although the OCAQ has been used in a number of reputable studies, there were no published data on the validity of the instrument. This researcher, therefore, sent the Giese modified version of the OCAO to six professionals in higher education so they could determine whether or not the instrument measured what it purported to measure. This jury of professionals were knowledgeable about organizational culture and well qualified to attest to the validity of the questions. Three were administrators familiar with the construct of organizational culture and three were researchers who were familiar with the construct and questionnaire construction. Results from the jury of six professionals showed that the statements for the respective cultural elements on the Guise version of the OCAO were perceived to accurately reflect those elements. The reviewers were asked to rate the validity of the statements in each cultural element using a 5-point scale: 5 = completely true, 4 = mostly true. 3 = partly true, 2 = slightly true, and 1 = not true. The average jury rating of the statements for each cultural element was as follow: 1. Managing Change = 4.5 2. Achieving Goals = 4.3 3. Coordinating Teamwork = 4.6 4. Customer Orientation = 4.3 5. Cultural Strength = 4.3

PAGE 74

64 Some of the reviewers did suggest some minor wording changes to a few of the statements. However, since there was no consensus on these proposed changes, it was decided to use the Guise version of the CXZAQ . This version of the questionnaire had been used in the higher education environment and pertained directly to administrators. Demographic information was added to the questionnaire so respondents could be placed into categories. The respondents were asked to indicate the following information: 1. Institution type (private, public) 2. Division (academic affairs, student affairs) 3. Position (vice president, dean, department chair/director, mid-level administrator) 4. Department or college of employment 5. Number of administrative levels removed from the vice president/dean of the division (none, one, two, three) 6. Gender (female, male) 7. Race (Asian-Pacific Islander, Black, Caucasian, Hispanic/Latino, Native-American, other) 8. Number of years with this institution 9. Number of years as a professional in higher education Full-time professional administrators in academic affairs and student affairs divisions at each of the three institutions were identified through a list from each division. Information on the list included name, position, address, age, race, gender, and number of years with the institution. Administrators who were within two administrative levels of the vice president were mailed the Guise modified Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnairp rrTAQ^ to complete and return to the researcher. A total of 246 questionnaires were mailed to administrators at the three institutions. A total of 182 useable

PAGE 75

65 questionnaires were returned, for an overall return rate of 74%. The distribution of surveys sent out and returned are listed in the Table 2. Table 2 Distribution and Return Rate of OCAO Survey Institution Academic Affairs Student Affairs Sent Returned Percent Sent Returned Percent Alpha College 38 25 66 17 14 82 Beta State Univ. 20 14 70 26 17 65 Gamma Univ. 121 72 60 23 21 91 Total 179 111 62 66 52 79 Qualitative Research Methodology The qualitative research methods used included individual and group interviews with professional staff in the divisions of academic affairs and student affairs to obtain participants' views on the organization's underlying values, assumptions, and normative behavior. Information gleaned from observations obtained while on campus for the interviews are also included in the data collection. An analysis of institutional documents which pertain to the mission, structure, and operation of each of these divisions also was conducted. The methodology to be used in the interviews and data collection is based on Edgar Schein's model of investigation (Schein, 1992). Institutional

PAGE 76

documents which described the mission, goals, structure, and operation were requested from the vice president in each division. These documents were examined prior to campus visits so they had a basic understanding of the mission, goals, structure and procedures of each division before conducting interviews. The divisional liaison was consulted by the researcher in identifying the administrators to interview so interviews covered a wide range of demographic information, administrative responsibilities, and perspectives. Individuals selected to be interviewed comprised a purposeful sample designed to obtain as much information as possible about the respective division and its culture. Lincoln and Guba (1985) stated that purposeful sampling was the primary methodology used in naturalistic or ethnographic research. The formal and informal leader was interviewed, along with administrators who were new to the division and those who had been with the division for numerous years. There was an attempt to interview administrators who represented various levels of authority, gender, ethnicity, and age. The individual interviews were semi-structured and open in nature so that participants could tell stories about the evolution and operation of the organization. Asking interviewees to explain critical incidents and how they were handled informed the researcher of the cultural assumptions and values operating in the organization (Schein, 1992). The researcher also asked clarifying questions to reach some conclusions about the underlying assumptions which guided the culture. The basic cultural elements explored in the interviews were congruent with those covered in Sashkin's GCAQ : Managing Change, Achieving Goals, Coordinated Teamwork, Customer, Orientation, and Cultural Strength. The interview format followed the

PAGE 77

67 methodology outlined by Edgar Schein (1992) while incorporating the cultural elements of the OCAO . The primary questions which were used in individual interviews included the following: 1. Please tell me a little about yourself as an administrator and how you came to be in the position you currently hold. 2. Please describe the role and mission the academic affairs/student affairs division has in the institution. (strength, goal attainment, customer orientation) 3. Describe the relationship the academic affairs/student affairs division has to the other parts of the institution. (attitude, relationships, influence) 4. Describe a couple of critical incidents within the division that have occurred within the past 5 years. (what, who, when, how, why) 5. Describe what is it like to be a member of the division, (status, relationships, expectations, cohesiveness, rewards/punishments, ideology) 6. How would you describe communication within the division? 7. How does the division cope with change? 8. How do new members in the division become socialized? Describe any traditions within the division. 9. What do you think are the values of the division? 10. How would you describe the culture in the division? The number of administrators in each division varied according to the size of the division and those who were thought to be representative of different perspectives. The liaison in each division was consulted to insure that important leaders were interviewed. Ten academic administrators and eight student affairs administrators participated in separate individual interviews at

PAGE 78

68 Gamma University. At Alpha College eight academic administrators and six student affairs administrators participated in individual interviews. Because of a faculty meeting on proposing a new administrative structure at Beta State University, only seven academic administrators participated in the interviews, although nine student affairs administrators participated. The researcher did attend the deans council and the campus-wide faculty meeting at Beta State University to observe the interaction. Schein (1992) stated that relatively new employees in the division could be helpful in identifying aspects of the behavior which are unique to that organization. Therefore, a group discussion was conducted with administrators from each division who had been with the division less than 6 years. Six to eight administrators received letters asking them to participate in a group discussion to explore cultural artifacts, values, and assumptions within their division of academic affairs or student affairs. A group discussion was conducted with the individuals who agreed to participate. Three academic administrators and three student affairs administrators participated in separate group discussions at Gamma University. At Alpha College four academic administrators and four student affairs administrators participated in the discussions. Because of a faculty meeting at Beta State University only two academic administrators participated in the discussion, although four student affairs administrators participated in their discussion. Administrators at the vice-president level were not invited to these discussions so that participants could feel free to speak their mind. The group discussion followed the following format: 1. The researcher introduced the concept of culture and the ways culture manifests itself through artifacts, values, and basic assumptions.

PAGE 79

69 2. The group participants were asked to identify cultural artifacts within the organization. "What is going on in the organization?" (Schein, 1992, p. 151) 3. The group was asked to explain the organizational values that were connected to the artifacts. "Why are you doing what you are doing?" (Schein, 1992, p. 151) 4. The group was asked to examine inconsistencies in artifacts and espoused values to determine if there were any underlying shared assumptions. 5. The group was asked to reach a consensus on the shared assumptions and the implications these assumptions had on the organization. (Schein, 1992). Information gathered through the individual and group interviews was collected and analyzed using methodology proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Schein (1992). The question of reliability, internal validity, external validity, and objectivity in qualitative research has been answered by researchers with the concept of trustworthiness. Lincoln and Guba (1985) have described trustworthiness as responding to the following questions: "How can an inquirer persuade his or her audiences (including self) that the findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to, worth taking account of? What arguments can be mounted, what criteria invoked, what questions asked, that would be persuasive on this issue''" (p. 290) Lincoln and Guba (1985) have suggested there are four criteria that should be met by naturalistic or ethnographic research. These criteria include credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility refers to conducting the study in such a way to insure that the findings adequately represent the reality of the participants. Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommended that credibility could be enhanced if the researcher

PAGE 80

70 had prolonged engagement with the subjects and the setting so a variety of observations and interactions can be included in the data collection. They also recommended that the researcher use triangulation as a method to check the data for accuracy. Triangulation involves comparing the results of various research methods, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis, to verify the results. The third method of increasing credibility involves using peers to debrief during the data collection and analysis phases so the researcher can maintain perspective on the study. Negative case analysis, the continual process of refining the hypothesis as data are analyzed, is another method of increasing credibility. Continual revision of the hypothesis in light of new data results in no exceptions to the hypothesis, thereby increasing the credibility of the research. The fifth method of increasing credibility, referential adequacy, recommends the researcher archive data and not use the data in the analysis. This unused data would be used later to verify the conclusions reached using the other data. The sixth recommendation to increase credibility is viewed as the most crucial. Member checks is the process of sharing the "data, analytical categories, interpretations, and conclusions with members of the stakeholder groups from which the data were originally collected" (Lincoln & Cuba, 1985, p. 314). The credibility of this study was enhanced through some of the methods described above. The researcher spent 5 days on each campus and interviewed a variety of administrators within each division. The researcher utilized various research methodology to triangulate the results. Individual interviews, group interviews, document analysis, and the OCAO questionnaire were all used in data collection. The researcher also utilized peers to debrief during the data collection and analysis stages. These peers were professionals in student affairs and academic affairs and provided feedback to the

PAGE 81

71 researcher as she was analyzing the data. These steps helped increase the credibility of the study. The second criterion for increasing the trustworthiness of the study is transferability, which equates to external validity in quantitative studies. Transferability of the results to other settings is not an outcome of ethnographic research; however, Lincoln and Guba (1985) wrote that detailed description of the collected data may enable others to make transferable judgments to similar settings. This researcher provided detailed description of the information collected from individual interviews, group interviews, and data analysis to enable others to obtain an extensive picture of the organization. Dependability is the third criterion advanced by Lincoln and Guba (1985) as a means of increasing trustworthiness. Dependability relates to the consistency, predictability, and stability in the study. Emphasis on credible research methods will result in sufficient dependability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 299). The fourth criterion for trustworthiness is confirmability, which is equivalent to objectivity in quantitative research. Confirmability is determined by whether the quality of the data is sufficient to be confirmable. Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommended that confirmability could be shown by using an auditor to examine the processes and products of the study. This researcher developed an audit trail consisting of (a) raw data (tape recordings, written field notes, and documents);, (b) data reduction and analysis products (transcribed interviews, summaries from interviews), (c) data reconstruction and synthesis products (category structures and summaries, preliminary findings), and (d) materials relating to intentions and dispositions (dissertation proposal and communication with institutions).

PAGE 82

72 Data Analysis Quantitative Data Analysis Analysis of the OCAQ resulted in 5 subscores for each administrator who returned the questionnaire. Each of the 5 subscores ranged from 6 to 30. Low scores indicated that members of the division perceived it as functioning less than desirable in that cultural element. The 5 subscores were Managing Change, Achieving Goals, Coordinated Teamwork, Customer Orientation, and Cultural Strength. Sashkin (1990) stated that the OCAQ was designed to be analyzed by group scores rather than individual scores because culture is more accurately described as a group perception rather than an individual perception. Sashkin also has cautioned researchers not to put too much emphasis on what the scores means. He suggested that researchers look for trends in the group results to provide a direction of what might be done to improve the organization's culture. Sashkin has developed some normative score ranges based on the limited samples he has collected. Those ranges were listed in Table 2, earlier in this chapter. Questionnaires from each division within each institution were analyzed as a group. A mean and standard deviation for each subscore was calculated. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze each of the subscores at each respective institution between academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators. An ANOVA also was used to compare each subscore among the three institutions' academic affairs administrators. Similarly, an ANOVA was used to compare each subscore among the three institutions student affairs administrators. A "p value" of .05 was used to determine significance in the ANOVA comparisons. If

PAGE 83

73 there was significance at the .05 level, the Tukey Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variability was run to assess where the significant differences occurred. The analysis of the QCAQ was used to partially answer research questions 2, 3, and 4. The divisional subscores within each institution were compared to identify similarities and differences between the academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators on each campus (question 2). Information gained in the questionnaire allowed the comparison of academic affairs administrators on the three campuses (question 3). An analysis of the subscores also enabled a comparison of student affairs administrators across the three campuses (question 4). Information gained from the individual interviews and group discussions were used in answering each research question; however, the quantitative data more readily allowed for comparisons among the groups. Qualitative Data Analysis The analysis of qualitative data does not follow the same procedure as analysis of quantitative data. Qualitative data analysis is inductive in nature, where the researcher begins with the data, which are then sorted and categorized. Interpretation of the categories and themes then generates propositions or hypothesis, from which constructs can be derived (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Data analysis of the documents and interviews is a continual process for the researcher that begins in the initial phases of data collection and extends through the final writing of the case study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988). As the researcher collected data there was continual refinement of the questions and focus of the interviews. Data gained in previous research were used to make these modifications. As the researcher analyzed the documents, transcripts, and field notes of the interviews, the data were reduced to units of

PAGE 84

74 information. Lincoln and Guba (1985) wrote that a unit should have two characteristics: First, it should be heuristic, that aimed at some understanding or some action that the inquirer needs to have or to take. Second, it must be the smallest piece of information about something than can stand by itself, that is, it must be interpretable in the absence of any additional information other than a broad understanding on the context in which the inquiry is carried out. (p. 345) Units from this study were coded according to the individual, division, institution, and page number in the interview transcripts for auditing purposes. Units similar in nature were then placed in categories. A unit of information may have been placed in more than one category. Categories contain units of information that relate to the same content. These categories are fluid in nature as they are being identified by sorting through the units. Glaser and Strauss (1967) described categories as "concepts indicated by the data (and not the data itself). ... In short, conceptual categories and properties have a life apart from the evidence that gave rise to them" (p. 36). Categories are developed by constantly comparing the content of each category. This researcher developed categories through reading the transcripts of the individual interviews and selecting relevant units of information. These units of information were then placed in categories. Some of the categories were predetermined by the desire to frame the examination of culture to the five cultural elements in Sashkin's OCAQ (Managing Change, Achieving Goals, Coordinating Teamwork, Customer Orientation, and Cultural Strength). Other categories, such as decision making, communication, traditions, and socialization, were subcategories within these broader categories. After reading through each individual's interview transcript, that administrator's relevant units of information were recorded in the

PAGE 85

75 appropriate categories on a summary page. After analyzing each administrators interview in the same manner, each administrator's summary pages for each division within each institution were compared for similarities and differences. Units of information which were mentioned by at least onethird of the administrators interviewed in that division were viewed as representative of the division and placed in the divisional summary for the respective category. This divisional summary contained common cultural themes and patterns throughout each division in each institution. These patterns of normative behaviors, beliefs, and values were used to help answer research question 1, which identifies the cultural attributes in each division within each institution. The cultural values, assumptions, and normative behaviors in the academic affairs and student affairs divisions within each institution, as examined within the context of the five cultural elements, were then compared. Similarities and differences were identified and expounded upon. The information gained through qualitative interviews was combined with the quantitative data to answer the second research question, which asked for a comparison of the culture in the two divisions on each campus. The cultural values, assumptions, and normative behaviors in student affairs divisions among the three institutions, as examined within the context of the five cultural elements, were then compared. Both qualitative and quantitative data were used for this comparison in order to answer research question 3. The outcome of this comparison also allowed conclusions to be drawn as to whether student affairs organizational culture was professionally or institutionally based (research question 5). The cultural values, assumptions, and normative behaviors in academic affairs divisions among the three institutions, as examined within the context

PAGE 86

of the five cultural elements, were then compared. Both qualitative and quantitative data were used for this comparison in order to answer research question 4. The comparison also allowed conclusions to be drawn as to whether organizational culture was professionally or institutionally based (research question 6). Summary Chapter 3 explained the methodology used to examine the administrative culture within the academic affairs division and within the student affairs division in three institutions of higher education. The study explored organizational culture among administrators within two levels of the vice president or dean for the division. Qualitative interviews with new and more established administrators provided information about normative behavior, beliefs, and values. The qualitative data were analyzed by compiling similar units of information into categories, as espoused by Lincoln and Cuba (1985). Quantitative data from the distribution of the OCAO also provided information about administrators' perception of how the division Managed Change, Achieved Goals, Coordinated Teamwork, its Customer Orientation, and its Cultural Strength. The results of the OCAO were analyzed through means and standard deviations and by comparing the subscores using an ANOVA and the Tukey Studentized Range Test for variability. The results of the quantitative and qualitative data were combined to answer the six research questions.

PAGE 87

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY Overview of Chapter This chapter first presents an overview of how the research was conducted. Each of the six research questions are then answered. The results from both the qualitative and quantitative data collected during the study are used to answer the research questions. Synopsis of Research Process In April, 1995, telephone calls were made to the vice presidents for student affairs at two state institutions and two private institutions in the southeastern United States. This was the first attempt to gain access to institutions for this study. The vice president at the large private institution and the commuter state institution refused the request. Similar requests were extended sequentially to the vice president at three state commuter institutions before a vice president for student affairs granted permission. The vice president for student affairs at the large residential research institution (Gamma University), the medium-sized state commuter institution (Beta State University), and the private institution (Alpha College) then made the initial contact with the provost to inform him of the potential research project. In June and July, 1995, letters were sent to the provost explaining the purpose of the research. A follow-up telephone conversation with the provost explained the project, details of the research, and the support that would be necessary from the institution. By the beginning of August, 1995, the vice presidents of student affairs and academic affairs at each of the three institutions had 77

PAGE 88

78 agreed to participate in the research. Each of vice presidents assigned a liaison from within the division to coordinate efforts with the researcher. In August, 1995, the researcher contacted each liaison with specific requests for information. The divisional liaison provided the researcher with a list of all full-time administrators who were within two levels of the divisional vice president. This list included each staff member's name, campus address, title, gender, race, and years of service at the institution. General information about the divisions such as organizational charts, mission statements, goals, and rules and procedure manuals were also requested. In September, 1995, each of the administrators within two reporting levels of the vice president for student affairs and the provost/vice president for academic affairs were sent a cover letter introducing the study, an Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire ( OCAQ ^ to complete, and a return-addressed stamped envelope. A total of 246 questionnaires were mailed to administrators. Individuals who did not return the questionnaire by October were sent a reminder postcard. Data collection also involved spending 5 days on each campus to interview administrators within each division. The researcher was at Gamma University from October 30, 1995, through November 3, 1995, to interview administrators. The visit to Alpha College was from November 13 through November 17, 1995. Interviews were conducted at Beta State University from December 4 though December 8, 1995. Seven to nine individuals within the academic affairs division and the student affairs division were interviewed regarding their perceptions of the administrative culture within their division. Individuals were selected in consultation with the liaison in each division. Whenever possible, individuals were selected to represent different administrative levels and departments within the division, each gender, and

PAGE 89

79 various ethnic groups. In addition to these one-on-one interviews, a group of administrators who had been at the institution less than 6 years were asked to participate in a group discussion about cultural artifacts found in their respective division. Two to five administrators from each division participated in a 90to 120-minute group discussion about the culture they discovered upon their entrance to the academic affairs division or student affairs division within the institution. Information gathered from the individual and group interviews within the academic affairs and student affairs divisions in each institution was analyzed according to the process described in Chapter 3. The general rate of return for the Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire was shown in Table 3 in Chapter 3. The analysis of those results and the interviews are combined later in this chapter to answer the six research questions. Results of Organi zational Culture Assessment Questionnaire A total of 246 questionnaires were mailed to administrators at the three institutions. A total of 182 useable questionnaires were returned, for an overall return rate of 74%. The distribution of surveys sent out and returned are listed in Table 3 on page 65 of this document. The OC^ survey does not specify the particular qualities within the culture, rather, it measures the perception of normative behavior within the organization. This perception by members of the organization can lead one to assess the strength of the division's culture. A description of the organizational cultural qualities measured in the instrument follows: 1. Managing Change-This scale assesses the degree to which members of the organization see the organization as effective in adapting to and managing change.

PAGE 90

80 2. Achieving Goals— This scale measures how effective the organization is in achieving goals, the extent to which there are shared goals, and the degree to which these goals support improvement. 3. Coordinated Teamwork--This scale assesses the extent to which the organization is effective in coordinating the work of individuals and groups and the extent to which collaboration is present. 4. Customer Orientation--This scale assesses the extent to which organizational activities are directed toward identifying and meeting the needs and goals of clients and customers. 5. Cultural Strength--This scale assesses the strength of the organization's culture by asking respondents to report on the extent to which people agree on values (Sashkin, 1990). The score for each element is a tabulation of the six questions related to that cultural quality. Chapter 3 explained that the mean score for each element could range from 6 to 30. Table 3 presents the descriptive data for each division within each institution. The mean score represents the degree of perception by administrators that these cultural elements are present in their division at each institution. Within each institution the student affairs administrators means for each cultural element were higher than the academic affairs administrators mean score for each cultural element. The standard deviations in 80% of the cultural elements were lower for student affairs administrators than for academic affairs administrators. This indicated more congruence among the perception of student affairs administrators than the perception of academic affairs administrators on these cultural elements. The Cultural Strength element consistently showed a smaller standard deviation and a lower score than the other cultural elements in both administrative groups. This indicated

PAGE 91

there was more congruence regarding the degree of Cultural Strength within each division, although the perception of Cultural Strength was lower than for other cultural elements. Table 3 Deggriptivg StatigtigS fQt Organizatio nal Culture Elements bv Institution Academic Affairs Student Affairs No. \A pan ivi ^ a 11 OLU. i--/C V , No. Mean J>td. uev Alpha College Manage Change 25 20.320 2.982 14 20.643 3.104 Achieving Goals 24 17.792 3.021 14 18.929 4.178 Teamwork 25 17.120 3.456 14 19.071 2.165 Customer Orient. 25 20.320 2.982 14 20.643 3.104 Cultural Strength 25 16.880 2.369 14 17.143 1.610 Beta State Universitv Manage Change 29 16.828 5.050 17 20.471 2.787 Achieving Goals 29 17.103 4.693 17 20.000 4.138 Teamwork 30 17.700 3.697 17 20.294 2.173 Customer Orient. 31 16.774 3.631 17 21.176 2.555 Cultural Strength 29 16.103 2.664 16 17.125 1.962 Gamma Universitv Manage Change 67 21.293 3.674 21 21.905 3.375 Achieving Goals 66 20.409 3.433 20 20.959 3.268 Teamwork 72 20.375 2.755 21 21.000 2.302 Customer Orient. 72 20.375 2.895 21 21.524 3.958 Cultural Strength 73 17.918 1.963 21 18.048 1.910 In order to analyze the degree of significance of these mean differences, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the elements between the administrative groups within each institution. Table 4 lists the ANOVA for each of the cultural elements as perceived by the academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators.

PAGE 92

82 Table 4 Analysis of Varian ce Between Academic Affairs Administrators and Student Affairs Administrat ors Perception of the Organizational Cultural Elements Institution Cultural Element F-Value Pr > F Alpha College Managing Change 0.29 .5919 Achieving Goals 0.94 .3383 Teamwork 3.64 .0643 Customer Orientation O.IO .7510 Cultural Strength 0.14 .7141 Beta State University Managing Change 7.46* .0090 Achieving Goals 4.44* .0408 Teamwork 6.96* .0114 Customer Orientation 19.58* .0001 Cultural Strength 1.80 .1862 Gamma University Managing Change 0.21 .6488 Achieving Goals 0.39 .5343 Teamwork 0.90 .3463 Customer Orientation 2.15 .1460 Cultural Strength 0.07 .7888 *A significant difference at the <.05 level. The ANOVA showed that the only significant difference within an institution between academic affairs administrators' and student affairs administrators' perception of the organizational culture elements occurred at Beta State University. That institution's student affairs administrators viewed their organizational culture more positively in its ability to manage change, achieve goals, and coordinate teamwork than did academic affairs administrators. Student affairs administrators were much more focused toward their customers than were academic affairs administrators. The divisions within the other two institutions showed no significant differences in how they viewed these elements of organizational culture.

PAGE 93

83 Results of the Or ganizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire and the individual and group interviews were used to answer the six research questions. Question 1 What are the shared assumptions, values and beliefs among administrators in student affairs divisions and in academic affairs divisions on each campus? ^ Gamma University Gamma University was an institution with strong traditions. Many of the administrators had been associated with the university for most of their professional career. In this environment, loyalty and pride was a value that was apparent. The academic affairs administrators spoke of loyalty and pride to the university, whereas most of the student affairs administrators spoke of their loyalty to their vice president and the student affairs division. Both groups spoke of an environment which encouraged change and innovation. Striving for improvement was often mentioned by individuals from both administrative areas. This value was clearly espoused by the two vice presidents, who repeatedly spoke of the importance of change and continued improvement. Much of this change was done in a political arena because politicians in the state paid close attention to activities at the institution. A number of administrators said Gamma University operated in more of a political arena than their previous institutions and they valued staff who could take care of the politics of a given situation. Another common value between the two divisions was their commitment to excellence. Academic affairs spoke of striving for excellence in teaching, research, and service. Although academic administrators acknowledged that improvements had been made, there was a continual

PAGE 94

84 commitment to achieving excellence. Student affairs administrators claimed they were on the "cutting edge" in integrating theory and practice in their programs. They took great pride in receiving regional and national recognition for their creative programs and entrepreneurial efforts. Although the student affairs division at Gamma University reported more traditions than did academic affairs, both divisions valued their sense of tradition. One of the campus traditions was that of civility in interpersonal relationships within the institution. Academic affairs administrators cited several examples of where individuals were retained because of their longevity with the institution even though they were ineffective in a particular position. Student affairs administrators spoke of the division being a "family which took care of each other." There was a commitment to each other as individuals, as well as professional colleagues. The last value the two divisions had in common was that of service to students. "Taking care of students" was the primary value listed by all the student affairs administrators. A number of the student affairs administrators mentioned they probably assisted students to the extreme sometimes; however, the staff was devoted to helping students in whatever way they could. Academic affairs administrators, especially at the department chair level, also mentioned a commitment to students. Department chairs were very accommodating in meeting student needs. The upper level academic administrators were less vocal in their commitment to students as individuals, although they were concerned about providing a quality experience for students. Aloha CnUe.^ e The two divisions in the liberal arts institution. Alpha College, exhibited some similar cultural attributes. Both the academic affairs and student affairs

PAGE 95

85 divisions listed "assisting their students" as their number one priority. The most important customer for both groups was the student body. This value was expressed in the interviews and the survey results. The subscore for customer orientation was the strongest mean score for both academic affairs administrators (20.320) and student affairs administrators (20.642). Both divisions valued the educational mission of the institution. Academic affairs administrators placed high emphasis and pride in the quality of teaching at Alpha College. Student affairs administrators also valued the learning process, although they emphasized student development instead of classroom teaching. A majority of the student affairs administrators spoke of programs such as leadership, career advising, and counseling that were designed to assist in a student's overall development. Another value common to both academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators was the importance of input into the governance structure. In academic affairs, administrators stressed the importance of faculty input in decision making, particularly those decisions related to curriculum, direction of the institution, and faculty relations. The governance structure at Alpha College placed an high emphasis on faculty committees in the decision-making process. Similarly, the student affairs decision-making style was quite collaborative in the early phases of the process. Staff felt they could provide input to most situations at the beginning of the fact gathering phase; however, they were often not involved in the final decision-making discussion. The results of the Organizati onal Culture Assessment Questionnairp. also revealed similarities between administrators in academic affairs and those in student affairs. The questionnaire did not specify the belief, value, or quality

PAGE 96

86 but measured the congruence among administrators in their shared beliefs concerning normative behavior and attitudes in the division. The interviews revealed a few shared values between academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators at Alpha College. Both groups viewed their primary customer as the students. Likewise, both sets of administrators emphasized the importance of effective teaching and learning, although the subject matter was quite different. Administrators stressed a collaborative decision-making process, with academic affairs using this technique throughout its decision-making process. Student affairs used collaboration in the early stages of decision making, although the dean often switched to an authoritative style in the final stages of decision making. Beta State University Beta State University was a commuter institution which served a large metropolitan area and enrolled a diverse student body, from the older adult nondegree student to the full-time undergraduate traditional-aged student. Both divisions at Beta stressed the value of accepting diversity, especially within their student population. Administrators in student affairs placed emphasis on the racial and age diversity in the student population. The academic administrators spoke of their commitment to the community population, which was older and racially mixed, and produced many part-time older students. Beta State University's composition of three geographically separate campuses has produced administrators that valued their autonomy and independence. Academic administrators spoke of their independence and the strong notion of academic freedom on campus. High level administrators reported that this value was taken to the extreme in some cases as there were numerous small colleges or programs that were not connected to larger

PAGE 97

87 academic departments or colleges with similar academic programs. Student affairs administrators stressed the independence and autonomy each of them had to administer their own programs. This independence was highly valued, although administrators did express concern about the competition for resources that it created among the departments in student affairs. Being a young, growing institution with many needs, administrators in both divisions had to pay attention to the political ramifications of their decisions. Public higher education in the state was very political so administrators were quite candid about the importance of perception in their decisions. An example of a political decision affecting the institution in academic affairs was the legislative mandate for an academic vice president on each of the three campuses. This created a duplication of services and confusion as to roles of authority. Administrators in the student affairs division also reported that politics were very important, but the politics were of a different nature. Administrators indicated that the politics were often a factor as the division's departments were positioning for status with the vice president for student affairs. In general, the academic affairs division and student affairs division at Beta State University had more dissimilarities than similarities. These are discussed more fully in the discussion on question 2. Summary The two administrative divisions at Gamma University shared more beliefs and values than the academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators at the other two institutions. Similarly, Beta State University showed there were few common values held by the two divisions. Even when they held the same belief, the motivation for the belief was quite different.

PAGE 98

88 Question 2 What are the similarities and differences between the organizational culture of academic affairs administrators and the organizational culture of student affairs administrators on each campus? An examination of research Question 2 provided additional insights regarding differences and similarities between the administrative culture in academic affairs and student affairs at each of the institutions. A logical way to explain the similarities and differences in the administrative organizational culture in academic affairs and student affairs was to explore the cultural elements of the Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire . Each institution's administrative culture is addressed through the cultural elements of Managing Change, Achieving Goals, Coordinated Teamwork, Customer Qrientation, and Cultural Strength. Gamma University Managing change . Both divisions' mean score on Managing Change fell in the average range for normative scores on the OCAO . Student affairs administrators scored a mean of 21.905 with a standard deviation of 3.375, whereas academic affairs had a mean of 21.493 with a standard deviation of 3.674. There were no significant differences between the two divisional means on this cultural element. A new president came to Gamma University in 1990, followed by new provost in 1992. Since that time change has been a commonly used word among administrators in the division of academic affairs. The provost has replaced 9 of the 16 academic deans so the division has changed dramatically. Most of the deans seemed excited about the changes. However, deans and departments chairs reported that a number of department chairs and faculty were less enthusiastic. Tradition at Gamma University was very strong, and

PAGE 99

some department chairs and faculty viewed these changes as too drastic for the campus environment. The politics of influential groups in the state also have played an important role in many of the academic decisions at Gamma University by either prohibiting or contributing to change in the academic structure. The provost had decentralized much of the decision making and delegated it to the colleges, thereby giving the deans a great deal of autonomy. He also used task forces as a method of getting ideas from the provost office discussed and implemented. The faculty task forces made the recommendations to the faculty governance process and pushed for change rather than the provost himself doing so. The provost found this process more effective than his pushing for changes. The division of academic affairs was in a period of intense change. A few of top administrators admitted that they were trying to create as much change as possible in a short period of time because the organization's threshold for accepting change would soon be reached. Academic affairs administrators wanted to take advantage of this period before the organization and its members reach the plateau of stabilization. Change also seemed prevalent in the student affairs administrative culture at Gamma University. Although most of the administrators talked about tradition and the "Gamma Way" as a prevalent way of doing things, administrators seemed open to new ideas. Change and an entrepreneurial spirit were encouraged by the vice president, as long as the new concept or project could be justified and did not detract from the division's mission. The division seemed to use change as a method of staying invigorated since many of the administrators had been in the division for quite some time and many had received their degrees from the institution.

PAGE 100

90 Decision making within the division usually involved group discussions, either at the department or central staff level. Focus groups from across the division were often used for difficult issues where there were no easy answers. These discussions were perceived as open for all opinions and people were free to disagree, as long as they were loyal and supportive of the final decision. Administrators stressed that decisions be made at the lowest possible level, after all the ramifications (especially political ones) had been explored. If the project had political ramifications, the vice president was usually involved in the situation. The vice president was perceived as politically astute and represented the division and institution well with state and local politicians. Achieving goals. Both divisions' mean score on Achieving Goals fell in the average range for normative scores on the OCAQ . Student affairs scored a mean of 20.950 with a standard deviation of 3.268, whereas academic affairs had a mean of 20.409 with a standard deviation of 3.433. The two divisional means showed no significant difference in how the two groups of administrators viewed this cultural element. The president and provost have succeeded in selling their goal of Gamma University joining the ranks of the Association of American Universities (AAU) to most of the deans. Many of the academic deans who did not believe in the goal have chosen to retire or go elsewhere. This goal has meant assessing the current academic programs and prioritizing which programs received additional funds to improve further their undergraduate and graduate programs. Some of the department chairs and a few of the deans were not pleased that their program(s) were not among the emphasized programs. Despite the presence of this inequitable financial support, the deans were supportive of the work being done to develop into an AAU institution. The deans saw the larger payoff of a better undergraduate

PAGE 101

91 program and better undergraduate students at the institution. Some of the deans indicated that it took considerable energy to convince the department chairs to adopt the institutional goals. Good teaching has always been a tradition at Gamma University as it prided itself on being the "best institution in the state." The provost has been successful in reinforcing the goal of quality teaching while emphasizing the importance of research for the institution to reach its new goal. The primary goal of academic affairs have been to achieve AAU status, maintain a quality undergraduate program, and improve the research and graduate programs. The provost and his central staff seemed to have found a method of establishing and attaining these goals that has been productive. There were some faculty and few department chairs who were not in support of the academic goals, but as one administrator said, "They were not in large numbers and the administration could out wait them" (interview 3). Administrators in student affairs at Gamma University espoused similar goals in their interviews. The divisions' primary goals were to support the academic mission by attracting and retaining students, providing essential support services to help students be successful, and providing opportunities for student development. The general consensus was that the division "did a better job than most" in meeting these goals. These goals, however, were primarily geared toward the traditional undergraduate students, with few programs directed toward its significant graduate population. The vice president and his central staff spoke consistently about being in partnership with academic affairs and relating the student affairs mission more closely to that of the institutional mission. The shift from focusing on student affairs programs to focusing on a partnership with academic affairs came about as a result of significant budget cuts in the early 1990s. There was

PAGE 102

92 a realization that student affairs needed to be more closely aligned with the institutional mission to get additional funding in the future. Many of the current programs in the division were of a service orientation and related to recruitment or retention of students. Most student affairs administrators agreed that student affairs departments met their goals. Department directors were held accountable to establish goals and desired outcomes and then assess their success. There was also a strong emphasis on improving established programs, thereby improving the services and the campus environment for students. Coordinated teamwork . The two administrative divisions at Gamma University again scored very similarly in their perception of Coordinated Teamwork in their respective organization. Academic affairs scored a mean of 20.375 with a standard deviation of 2.755. Student affairs administrators had a mean score of 21.000 with a standard deviation of 2.302. Both of these scores were in the average range on normative scores for the OCAO . The provost at Gamma University had developed a team in the central office of academic affairs that was extremely cohesive, open, and creative. The team had an informal style with each other that was collaborative. The assistant provosts served as his sounding board and provided the needed historical perspective. Communication was informal and continuous among these administrators. The deans seemed to have a working relationship with the provost and other personnel in the provost's office. Communication was more formal, although a number of them communicated with the provost by electronic mail on a regular basis. The deans were friendly with each other, although there was little collaboration among them. They were competing for money and faculty lines. One dean said, "They were all in the same ocean, but sailing in

PAGE 103

93 individual ships" (interview 6). The deans Icnew their college's status, and there seemed to be some envy of the colleges which were receiving the highest priority from the provost office. Unlike the deans who viewed themselves as part of the administrative team, department chairs did not. Most of the chairs viewed themselves as faculty on a 3-year loan to be department chair. They had no communication with other chairs across the institution and only some communication with other chairs in their college. They had little contact or communication with the provost and primarily dealt with departmental faculty and the college dean on personnel and curriculum matters. There was little institutional support or training to help new department chairs be successful. In the division of student affairs all the administrators talked about the "sense of family" and loyalty they felt toward each other. This cohesiveness was very apparent among the central staff as most of them had been together for over 10 years. They were very comfortable with each other, and their meetings were an open forum. Most of the department directors also seemed to have developed a supportive team within their departments. Administrators mentioned there was less communication, cohesion, and coordination of programs among the division's four departments. The vice president supported this "family perspective" by providing personal and professional support to individuals and programs. The division's departments were physically separated and not connected by electronic mail, so communication across departmental lines was limited. Central staff provided the regular information link through their meetings. There also was a divisional meeting once per month for the purpose of communication and professional development.

PAGE 104

94 There was some competition and envy within the student affairs division, mostly related to funding inequities, but it did not seem to inhibit people's interactions or collaboration. Many administrators crossed departmental lines to help other programs, especially admissions and orientation. External competition and envy with academic affairs was more apparent than internal competition among the departments in student affairs. Administrators in student affairs said they were treated as "second class citizens" within the institution, particularly in reference to academic affairs. Customer orientation . The academic affairs administrators mean of 20.375, with a standard deviation of 2.895, placed their score at the low end of the average range for Customer Orientation on the OCAQ . Student affairs administrators perceived themselves slightly higher, but their scores were more spread out. Their mean in this cultural element was 21.524, with a standard deviation of 3.958. This slight difference in perception did not prove to be significant. The administrators in academic affairs at Gamma University, particularly those in the provost office and the deans, were focused on providing services to insure their clients' success. Their clients were the faculty and the institution. Administrators emphasized assisting faculty to be better teachers and researchers. They also talked of helping the university attain the next level, AAU status, and improve academic programs at the undergraduate and graduate level. There was some discussion about the immense amount of time spent on political issues by top level administrators. The provost was relatively new to the institution and found this to be a cultural element peculiar to Gamma University. The degree to which the provost had to smooth the political waters in the state was reinforced by a former provost.

PAGE 105

There was very little mention of students by upper level academic administrators. The exception to this was in connection of raising the academic standards to attract better quality students and the need for the university to retain these more gifted students. Department chairs talked about the interaction between faculty and students and the facultys' commitment to the teaching process. There was no question in the minds of administrators in student affairs that their primary customer was the students. Although they talked of student development theory and related it to practical applications, the division's primary focus was a customer service orientation toward students. A number of people talked about the personalized attention given students and used the phrase, "we take care of students." Many administrators said this value was emphasized by the vice president. A few student affairs administrators indicated the division may be too involved in student functions (student organization decisions) and may be too accommodating to students. It was felt that this accommodating attitude may have postponed reality for some students longer than was beneficial for their development. Although students were the division's primary customer, they were not the only customer. The division was purposefully aligning itself as a service provider to the rest of the campus. Their involvement as a service provider to the campus community reinforced their importance as a division. Some of the division's service activities included admissions, study skills, and the physical education and recreation complex. Other customers were the state and local politicians. It was very apparent that Gamma University was a very political environment, in part because it was the most visible state institution. Divisional leaders were

PAGE 106

96 knowledgeable about activities in the state offices and legislature that might impact the institution. Cultural streng th. Cultural Strength proved to be the cultural element where both administrative divisions had their lowest scores on the OCAO . although their scores were more congruent. Academic affairs had a mean of 17.918 with a standard deviation of 1.963. Student affairs had a mean of 18.048 with a standard deviation of 1.910. As with the other scores, there was no significant difference in the scores. In some ways there were two perspectives among academic affairs administrators at Gamma University. The department chairs and a few of the deans wanted to retain the old priorities and qualities of good teaching, service to the community, commitment to students, and loyalty and pride in the institution. However, the provost, president, and many of the newer deans were invested in changing the culture to emphasize excellence in teaching, quality research, rigorous academic standards for the entire academic community and pride in the institution. Although these two views of the institution were different, there were some values that both groups agreed were present in the academic affairs culture at Gamma University. 1. Commitment to academic excellence— Although there was a difference in the definition, some administrators included service and others did not, everyone agreed that excellence and the striving for quality was a value of the division. 2. Academic integrity-Administrators agreed that academic integrity was present at all levels. 3. Improvement-No matter whether administrators agreed with the current goals or not, they agreed that the division was always striving for

PAGE 107

improvement. For the past 15 years it has been in a state of change and improvement. 4. Civility-Many administrators spoke about the "Gamma Way" of treating people. It was a friendly environment, a pleasant place to work, and it treated its members with respect. Administrators did not speak badly of colleagues and the institution did not "air its dirty laundry in public." People were not fired at Gamma but rather placed in another position to cause less harm (interview 6). 5. Loyalty and pride— Administrators were proud to be associated with Gamma University. It gave them a certain amount of status in the community and the university treated them with respect. In return they were loyal to the institution and found pleasure in being part of the tradition at Gamma University. 6. Political-As mentioned before, politics played an important role in decision making in the institution and in academic affairs. It was important that the leaders knew the political landscape and be political astute to operate effectively. 7. Commitment to the education of students-Although few academic administrators mentioned students while discussing their roles and activities, there was a commitment to providing a quality education for the students. 8. Autonomy-One of the strongest values that emerged was the autonomy of administrators "to run their own ship." Although the institution had been through turbulent times in the past 15 years, faculty and academic administrators felt they had be left alone to do their job. They valued the ability to make their own decisions, within parameters. The overriding impression the researcher received from the student affairs administrators was that they were a "family," a group of individuals

PAGE 108

98 who did not always agree but listened to one another and took care of each other. Administrators new to the institution spoke about the tradition and the "Gamma Way" of doing things. They also discussed the importance of giving the right impression (looking good) and staff preparation. They spoke about the division being overprepared for any crisis. The values mentioned by new administrators were very congruent with those espoused by long time administrators. 1. We take care of students— This was the primary value of the organization and guided much of what they did. Their actions seemed to combine two concepts, customer service and valuing the individual. They spent a significant amount of energy trying to create an environment where all students, particularly minority students, felt welcome. 2. A sense of family and loyalty-There was a tremendous amount of caring about each other within the division. People knew about each other's lives and supported each other. Administrators were very loyal to the vice president and the division. There was a mutual trust among individuals within the division. 3. Innovation— Creativity was encouraged at every level. Administrators seemed to continually explore ways to improve what was being done. The driving force behind this was the desire to be on the "cutting edge," especially in relation to integrating student development and business theory to their activities. 4. Tradition and pride-The institution had a number of traditions, as did the division of student affairs. Part of that pride and tradition dealt with impressions. People talked about the importance of "looking good" and "doing things the right way." This value influenced a number of factors, such as the

PAGE 109

99 professional manner in which people dressed and the image portrayed by programs. 5. Take care of politics— Everyone was conscious of the importance of politics in the institution. A couple of administrators framed it as taking care of the politics first so you can focus on the program or task at hand. 6. Autonomy-Although there was a team orientation in the division, individuals valued autonomy in their programs. Administrators who had been at the institution and proven themselves were given autonomy. 7. Diversity and acceptance-Although student affairs valued support for all students, they also believed it was their role to promote diversity and the acceptance of all individuals to the entire campus. Members of the student affairs administration were very committed to each other and the students. Some administrators spoke of their commitment to people actually being a detriment to an individual's growth and development. Gamma Universitv summary The results of the OCAQ and the interviews reinforced the number of similarities between the administrative culture in academic affairs and the administrative culture in student affairs at Gamma University. The similarities are graphically shown on a bar graph (Figure 1) which depicts the means of each cultural element by division.

PAGE 110

100 Manage. Actiieving Teamwork Customer Cultural Change Goals Orient. Strength Figure 1 Bar graph showing means of cultural elements in academic affairs and student affairs at Gamma University. The two administrative divisions at Gamma University employed similar strategies in managing change and were open to change and improvement. The two divisions were both goal oriented and typically achieved the goals which were primarily established by the top administrators in each of the divisions. There was a difference between the two divisions in the cultural element of Coordinating Teamwork. The academic affairs division had an effective team at the provost and dean level; however, that team did not extend to department chairs. The concept of team was present at all three administrative levels within the student affairs division. The Customer Orientation of both divisions were similar in their perspective of their secondary customers. Academic affairs administrators viewed the faculty as their primary customer, with the institution and the state political process as secondary customers. Student affairs administrators viewed the students as

PAGE 111

101 their primary customer, with the institution and the state political process as secondary customers. The two divisions at Gamma University also shared similar values and beliefs. The common values included innovation and a commitment to improvement, pride in the institution and its traditions, attention to the political ramifications of decisions, loyalty to the institution, administrative autonomy, and a commitment to students. In addition to these common values, academic affairs administrators held the values of a commitment to academic integrity and academic excellence, and a commitment to treating people in a civil and humane manner. Student affairs administrators held the common values mentioned above, in addition to valuing diversity and acceptance. Alpha College Managing change. The OCAO survey results showed that members of both organizations at Alpha College viewed their ability to handle change in a similar manner. The mean for academic affairs administrators was 18.833 while the student affairs administrative mean score was 19.357. Both of these scores were in the bottom of the "average" range (19-25), as described in the QG^ material. Although student affairs administrators ranked their ability to deal with change slightly higher, their individual scores were more dispersed than administrators in academic affairs. The standard deviation for student affairs administrators was 3.500 as opposed to 2.461 for academic affairs administrators. Academic affairs administrators often spoke of wanting to implement change but reported that faculty were often reluctant to accept recommendations from administrators. The decision-making and governance structure in academic affairs at Alpha College was the traditional faculty

PAGE 112

102 governance model where faculty committees and faculty senate held much of the power. Individual faculty enjoyed the status quo so change came slowly to academic affairs. A concept closely aligned with managing change is how decisions are made. In the case of academic affairs the faculty committees made the large decisions about curriculum direction and academic requirements. Department chairs had little decision-making or authoritative role. In fact, the dean of the faculty had canceled the department chair meetings because they could not determine their role in the organization. Department chairs did not see themselves as administrators but rather as communication links between the faculty, the dean of faculty, and provost. The majority of the department chairs said it was not a coveted role on campus but a duty in which every faculty member took his/her turn. Administrative decisions by the dean of the faculty and provost were regulated to those concerning implementation of the budget and general proposals from individual faculty or departments. Because there were so few administrators, decision making in academic affairs was not a timely process. The majority of department and program chairs mentioned the "black hole" phenomenon of proposals being forwarded to the dean or provost with no response for months. This was in part do to the conflicting and overlapping roles of the dean of faculty and provost. More changes had occurred within the student affairs division than academic affairs division in the past few years, and there was a general consensus among student affairs administrators that they were open to change. Administrators indicated that change within the division of student affairs was acceptable, but they were not always successful in fully implementing the change if it required assistance from people outside their division. A couple of administrators attributed this inability to fully

PAGE 113

103 implement change to their ineffective lobbying with the faculty, students, and other administrators to make the change permanent in the institution. Student affairs administrators thought divisional administrative decisions were made in a timely manner. Some administrators complained that decisions were too rushed on occasion and staff did not have sufficient time to discuss the issue and look at all the alternatives. Administrators generally felt that they had the opportunity to provide input on decisions, up to a point. The dean would typically take the input and then make a decision on his own. Administrators said it would not be that unusual to find out about a final decision from the newspaper or someone else rather than through administrative channels. Achievin g goals . Student affairs administrators again perceived their ability to achieve goals slightly more positively than did academic affairs administrators (a mean of 18.929 versus a mean of 17.792 on the OCAQ ). although the difference was not statistically different. As was the case with the previous cultural element, student affairs administrators were more diverse in their rating as their standard deviation was 4.178 compared to 3.021 in academic affairs. Both mean scores fell within the average range for groups taking the OCAQ . The academic affairs administrators spoke of teaching and the liberal arts curriculum as the primary goals at Alpha College. There was some disagreement from the department and program chairs about a new goal within academic affairs to place more emphasis on improving faculty's teaching methodology. Another new goal which was meeting some resistance was revising the liberal arts curriculum and adding a freshmen conference to distinguish Alpha College from similar liberal arts colleges. Many faculty and

PAGE 114

104 department chairs were reluctant to accept these goals, in part because they originated from academic administrators. One of the primary stumbling blocks to goal attainment in academic affairs at Alpha College was the administrative structure. The lack of middle managers (department chairs or division heads) with decision-making authority was a detriment to attaining goals in the organization. Goals were difficult to implement from the top down, and the faculty governance system often slowed down the process to the point where administrators lost interest and went on to other projects. The student affairs administrators at Alpha College were consistent in their belief that they existed to assist students in their overall development. There was some difference of opinion on how they achieved that goal. Some felt they provided opportunities that "allowed students to fail without getting hurt" (interviews 3 & 5). Others believed they did not challenge students' belief systems enough. Most administrators agreed that the division's activities fit nicely into the president's mission of promoting active citizenship, encouraging innovation, and promoting the liberal arts. It was a consensus among administrators in both divisions that student affairs was not well respected or integrated with the academic side of the institution. A number of administrators spoke of program goals not being implemented due to lack of support or involvement from academic affairs. Coordinated teamwork . The OCAO showed that student affairs administrators' perception of coordinated teamwork was higher than the perception of academic affairs administrators (a mean of 19.071 versus a mean of 17.120), although it was not statistically significant. The academic administrators' mean fell into the low range of normative scores in this category. Unlike the previous two cultural elements, the student affairs

PAGE 115

105 administrators' standard deviation of 2.165 showed more congruence in their perception than the academic administrators' standard deviation of 3.456. Academic affairs administrators at Alpha College did not describe themselves as a team. The values espoused by department and program chairs were autonomy, individuality, and distrust of a concentration of power. These values explained the governance structure of the institution where even the dean of the faculty had little real power. The allegiance that faculty and department chairs had was to the department rather than to the institution or division of academic affairs. There was little sharing or collaboration among departments, even though some departments were only two or three people. The focus on the department, in conjunction with a lack of resources, also led to some competition among departments for money and faculty lines. The lack of any formal communication structure further reinforced the isolation and individuality of departments. This autonomy should not imply that administrators and faculty did not care for one another. Administrators and faculty treated other each other, even administrators they did not think were doing a high quality job, with respect. Civility was a highly valued quality and part of the campus culture. Student affairs administrators at Alpha College spoke highly of their ability to work together, especially within their departments. They cited a couple of crisis situations where staff from across the student affairs division worked as a team to effectively handle the situation. There was a significant amount of interaction outside the job, especially among the younger administrators. The division had been successful in its efforts to provide a support network for the new administrators from across the division. The department directors worked well together and were able to discuss most issues openly. Directors indicated there was little internal competition

PAGE 116

106 among the student affairs departments. The directors spoke of the relationship with academic affairs including some competition and envy. The majority of student affairs administrators viewed themselves as second class citizens in the institution and felt they had to prove themselves to the academic side of the institution. The only concern within the division was the degree of trust among the top administrators. There was a lack trust among some of the directors and the dean of students. This concern with trust resulted from communication problems between the dean and some of the directors during the past 2 years. There was a perception among most administrators in the dean's council that the group dynamics had been damaged, but no one had taken steps to improve the situation. Customer orientation . The strongest cultural element for both divisions at Alpha College was in Customer Orientation. Academic affairs administrators mean score was 20.320, with a standard deviation of 2.982, while the mean for student affairs administrators was 20.643, with a standard deviation of 3.104. Both of these means placed on the higher end in the average range of normative scores on the QCAO . Administrators in academic affairs at Alpha College spent considerable time talking about their customers, and those customers were students. Although these administrators spent much of their day dealing with faculty and administrative issues, they seemed to keep the student in mind as the reason for being there. Many of the administrative conflicts about curriculum change and innovative teaching were centered around how best to educate the students. The conflicts came as a result of faculty having different perspectives about the most effective methods of teaching or the most effective curriculum for a liberal arts education. One of the issues which

PAGE 117

107 academic affairs was working through was a change in curriculum. There was a move to return to a more traditional liberal arts curriculum. However, some of the faculty and many of the students were more oriented to careers than to liberal arts. Student affairs administrators at Alpha College also viewed the students as their primary customer. Even though administrators spoke of the need to integrate faculty into their programs and to "toot their own horn" to the rest of the institution, they always came back to student needs. A conflict for the administrators seemed to be in prioritizing student needs and the politics of addressing controversial issues such as diversity, alcohol and drug education, and appropriate behavioral standards. A shortage of money and the politics of a small campus often limited what the staff felt they could do on controversial topics. This often resulted in mixed message about campus expectations and acceptable behavior. Another conflict within student affairs was the issue of student development versus a service orientation. It was apparent from their di scussions that this was a philosophical conflict. Many of the administrators mentioned that some staff in the division had a service mentality rather than a student development perspective. This conflict was particularly noticeable in the younger administrators who had recently completed graduate programs with a strong student development orientation. No matter what approach the different administrators used to perform their job, they all mentioned the importance of their close contacts with students. Cultural strength . Both administrative divisions at Alpha College scored their lowest in the cultural element of Cultural Strength. The academic administrators mean was 16.880, with a standard deviation of 2.369. This score fell in the low range of normative scores on this instrument. Student affairs

PAGE 118

108 administrators also scored a low with a mean of 17.143, which was in the low end of the average range for normative scores in this cultural element. Although this was these administrators' lowest score, there was more consensus among the student affairs administrators as the standard deviation was 1.610. Administrators in academic affairs were quite diverse in their opinion about their organization's culture. The relatively new administrators (less than 6 years at Alpha College) spoke of basic assumptions and values they discovered in the institution when they began working at Alpha College. They described the two basic assumptions which guided many of the decisions as the high value placed on faculty autonomy and the basic distrust of any concentration of power within the division. The organizational values these new administrators identified within the culture were similar to those identified by other academic administrators who were interviewed. The following values are those which at least one-third of the academic administrators mentioned as being present in the academic affairs division. 1. Dedication to teaching— The primary value that everyone talked about was the dedication administrators and faculty had to quality teaching, although there was much discussion within the division about what method of teaching was most effective and whether they were teaching knowledge or skills. 2. Dedication to students-Equally valued by academic administrators was the division's dedication to the students. They stressed the personal contact faculty had with students. 3. Individualism--Although some administrators talked of autonomy, more framed this concept as the freedom for everyone, faculty and students

PAGE 119

109 alike, to be individuals and approach their job from their own unique perspective. 4. Civility and the absence of conflict in the organization— Another value which was quite apparent to this researcher was the academic administrators desire for civility and the lack of confrontation in their interpersonal relationships within the division. There was a perception that this is a small community, much like a family, which will work with each other for a long time so they did not talk negatively of each other. 5. Dedication to their discipline—Although Alpha College was a liberal arts institution, there seemed to be more faculty loyalty and identification with their academic discipline than the institution. Many of the administrators viewed this as a detriment because it facilitated factions within the institution. 6. Hard work and responsibility— There was agreement that academic administrators and most of the faculty worked hard at Alpha College. 7. Territorial-The physical setting at Alpha had academic departments located in small houses. It was common to hear that department and program chairs rarely interacted with faculty or administrators outside of their departments. Administrators were very protective of their resources and facilities. There was limited interdisciplinary collaboration on campus. 8. Resistance to change— Academic administrators, particularly at the level of department chair and faculty governance committees, were resistant to change. A number of administrators who had been associated with Alpha College for a long period of time viewed the institution as a coUegial environment that was progressive at the same time it was classically resistant to change. Newer administrators viewed the institution as resistant to change and new ideas and as having academic departments that shared little in common.

PAGE 120

110 The culture among administrators in student affairs at Alpha College was as different as the administrators themselves. A couple of department chairs and the dean did not have a student personnel background and looked at issues differently than administrators who shared a common educational background. Additionally, there had been a large turnover in personnel within the previous 2 years so the administrators had not yet become a cohesive group across the division. Although there were many issues and differences within the division, the staff shared some basic assumptions about working at Alpha College. Many of the administrators, but particularly those relatively new to the institution, mentioned "The Alpha Way," which guided many responses to situations. "The Alpha Way" has guided administrators to personalize their interactions with students, as this was expected behavior at Alpha College. Another assumption new administrators discussed was how decisions were generally made at high levels and then handed down. This "top down management" also included an assumption that money directed programs and decisions. The new administrators and more established administrators in student affairs agreed upon the following common values within the division: 1. Commitment to students—The most common value was their commitment to students. This commitment dictated that they treat students in a personal manner and establish a connection with them. 2. Work hard with high energy --Everyone agreed that people put in excessive hours in performing their job, with minimum financial rewards. 3. Autonomy-The division was relatively small so all of the administrators, from department directors to entry level professionals, had considerable autonomy to do their job. Administrators valued the ability to conduct their own programs, within parameters, with little intervention.

PAGE 121

Ill 4. Experiential learning and education--Administrators also described their commitment to educating the students and creating opportunities for students to develop skills to accompany their intellectual knowledge. There were some questions about the degree to which they were succeeding in this area, but they were committed to student development. 5. Proving self-worth--Administrators in the division described their need to prove themselves worthy to the institution, particularly to faculty and academic affairs. They believed they were treated as "second class citizens" in budget matters and status. 6. Professional development— The administrators felt there was a commitment within the division for their professional development. Most of the administrators were young and they valued their division-wide professional development programs and the degree to which they were developing as student personnel professionals. 7. Comfortable work environment— Administrators talked about interpersonal relationships within student affairs as warm and respectful. They described the institution as a pleasant place to work. Student affairs administrators described their culture as developing, but not particularly strong. They enjoyed the high energy and productivity but had some concerns about whether staff were going in one clear direction. They were also concerned about the interpersonal dynamics and trust among the administrators. Individuals were wary of being themselves and outlining their beliefs on difficult issues because they were not sure what others believed. Alpha C ollege summary The results of the CG^ and the interviews reinforced the number of similar perceptions between the administrative culture in academic affairs

PAGE 122

112 and the administrative culture in student affairs at Alpha College. The similarities and differences in the means for each cultural element, separated by division, are graphically shown on a bar graph (Figure 2). The two administrative cultures at Alpha College showed similarities but were different in some cultural elements. Because the decision-making process was different in the two divisions, they managed change differently, although their score on that element of the OCAO was similar. The dean of 30 25 Alpha College I Academic Affairs I Student Affairs 20.32 20.643 Manage. Change 18,929 17.792 19.071 17.12 20.643 2032 16.88 17.143 Achieving Teamwork Customer Cultural Goals Orient. Strength Fi gure 2 Bar graph showing means of cultural elements in academic affairs and student affairs at Alpha College. faculty in the academic affairs division was open to creating change but had little authority to do so. The faculty governance committees, which were responsible for most academic policies and decisions, were generally opposed to change. Administrators at all levels in the student affairs division were open to change. In the cultural element of Achieving Goals, administrators in

PAGE 123

113 the academic affairs division agreed upon the primary goal of quality teaching. Other goals, especially those established by the top administrators, were not generally accepted by department chairs and faculty. Student affairs administrators generally achieved their goals, particularly if the goals were internal ones that did not require outside assistance. The two divisions at Alpha College were different in their ability to Coordinate Teamwork. Since most of the administrators in the academic affairs division viewed themselves as faculty and worked autonomously, they did not perceive themselves as part of an administrative team. Student affairs administrators did view themselves as a team, although there were concerns about the degree of trust within the division. Administrators from both divisions were in agreement on the cultural element of Customer Service. Both divisions listed their primary customer as the student. Administrators in the two divisions shared some similar values, as presented in the Cultural Strength element. The values common to both divisions included dedication to students, the importance of the teaching and learning process, autonomy, and hard work. Academic affairs administrators also valued a community which was civil and nonconfrontational, dedication to their academic discipline, the status quo, and individual differences. The student affairs administrators also valued their commitment to professional development, having a comfortable and friendly work environment, and a need to prove their divisions' self-worth. Beta Stat e University Managing change . The OCAQ results showed some significant differences between administrator perceptions of how the academic affairs division and student affairs division at Beta State University dealt with change. The academic affairs administrators mean score was 16.828, with a standard deviation of 5.050. This fell in the low range for normative scores on this

PAGE 124

114 cultural element. The student affairs mean score was 20.471, with a standard deviation of 2.787. This fell in the average range for normative scores on this cultural element. In order to analyze the variance in this cultural element, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied between the perceptions of academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators on how they manage change. The calculated F-Value of 7.46 indicated there was a significant difference at the .05 level in the administrators' perceptions of how they managed change. Beta State University has grown rapidly and administrators in academic affairs have witnessed continual change in the past few years. Most of the administrators in the provost's office and the campus vice presidents were new to their current positions. Some of the "political" changes imposed by the state legislature were to insure that all of Beta State University's campuses were viewed as "partners" with no preferential treatment to a particular campus. Administrators reported that the political policies have created an academic structure that is cumbersome and extremely complex. Although administrators were relatively open to change, academic administrators indicated the faculty have been more resistant. Administrators reported some faculty were disgruntled about having to travel to other campuses to teach classes. As the institution grew from a liberal arts college to upper division status and then to a distributed university, the faculty have been reluctant participants. One administrator described the situation as, "faculty have not been terribly vocal about their objections. There is a feeling of malaise more than anything else" (interview 4). The decision-making process was participatory to the extent that input was solicited by the provost. Most major decisions originated from the

PAGE 125

115 provost's office. Ideas were passed by the provost advisory council and the college deans for input and then returned to the provost for a final decision. Specific programs within the student affairs division at Beta State University have not experienced much change in the past 7 years since their current vice president came to the institution. A couple of administrators have left, but most of them have remained at the institution for an extended period of time. It was reported that the student affairs division had acquired a couple of key operations, admissions and athletics, because the president trusts the vice president for student affairs. These additional departments have not changed the way the remainder of the division operates. Most administrators indicated they were open to change, especially if they were given information and time to adjust to the change. Some administrators felt the lack of financial resources may have been the reason divisional changes have not occurred. Some administrators, including the vice president, thought there was some resistance to change from some staff who had been with the institution for a long time. One of the changes the vice president made upon his arrival was to empower directors to make more decisions regarding their programs, his philosophy being to decentralize responsibility. Directors enjoyed this autonomy, although there was an expectation that the vice president would be consulted on issues involving money and those with political implications. A number of directors described an unwritten rule within the division, "cover your ass" ("CYA"), on all matters that may be controversial. They stressed they have learned to put things in writing so there is a record of the discussion and events which led to the decision. Achieving goals. The OCAO results showed a significant difference between administrator perceptions of how the academic affairs division and

PAGE 126

116 student affairs division achieved their goals. The academic affairs administrators mean score was 17.103, with a standard deviation of 4.693. The student affairs mean score was 20.000, with a standard deviation of 4.138. The larger standard deviation score showed that both divisions experienced a wider range of perceptions in this category. Although the mean scores were nearly 3 points apart, they both fell within the average range for normative scores for this cultural element. In order to analyze the variance in this cultural element, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied. The calculated F-Value of 4.44 indicated there was a significant difference at the .05 level in the administrators' perceptions of how they achieved goals. Academic administrators at Beta State University have been so concerned about managing growth and institutional changes that they have spent little time discussing mission and goals. Administrators agreed that their primary goal was providing support for faculty so they could be more productive. Administrators also were directing academic programs on the various campuses, meeting the needs of the respective communities. Due to the institution being relatively young, many of the administrative structures were not yet in place and creating those systems was a divisional goal. Administrators thought a large part of their job was to improve the academic administrative processes. The latest improvement effort was to save money by reducing overhead costs. The provost and his team sent a proposal to the faculty that would change their administrative structure from academic departments to academic divisions. This would have placed more faculty with partial administrative duties back in the classroom. The proposal would have established an administrative line for division chairs, who would have performed more administrative duties and viewed themselves as administrators. The proposal also would have combined a couple of small

PAGE 127

117 colleges and schools with larger ones, again to save administrative costs. Although the administration viewed the proposal as financially and administratively logical, the faculty objected, and as a result the institution maintained its previous departmental structure. Academic administrators at Beta State University were committed to improving the quality of the academic programs and the efficiency of the division. Most of the time the administrators agreed on what would improve the situation. However, political problems and faculty resistance did not always permit these improvements to be completed. The primary goal of administrators within student affairs was service to their students. A number of staff thought they provided good services, considering the limited resources. Their success was attributed to the dedication of the people within the division. They viewed themselves as truly devoted to the students. ' A number of administrators mentioned the importance of student development in the division's goals, but they acknowledged that this goal was not accepted by everyone. The division was primarily service oriented, although some offices were focused on student development more than others. Some administrators were concerned that there was little divisional emphasis on goals or mission. Each department had its own goals, but there was little divisional focus or direction from the vice president. Although departmental goals were established, it was not clear if there was any kind of outcome assessment to determine if goals were met. Coordinated teamwork . The OCAO results showed some significant differences between administrator perceptions of how the academic affairs division and student affairs division coordinated teamwork. The academic affairs administrators mean score was 17.700, with a standard deviation of

PAGE 128

118 3.697. The academic affairs mean placed it at the top of the low range for normative scores in this cultural element. The student affairs mean score was 20.294, with a standard deviation of 2.173. The student affairs mean fell within the average range for normative scores in this category. In order to analyze the variance in this cultural element, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied between the perceptions of academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators on how they coordinated teamwork. The calculated F-Value of 6.96 indicated there was a significant difference at the .05 level in the administrators' perceptions of how they coordinated teamwork. The administrative team in the provost office at Beta State University (provost, assistant provosts, and campus vice presidents) was a very cohesive unit. This was evident in the open communication, cooperation, friendly rapport, and lack of competition among the administrators. The college deans also had a good working relationship with the provost and each other. The provost encouraged discussion on most issues, and the deans seemed to enjoy the opportunity for input. Although they competed for finances, they were still cooperative with one another. Occasionally there was a conflict between a dean and a vice president since a dean might report to three vice presidents if his/her college offered classes on all three campuses. The primary conflict within academic affairs was with department chairs. Department chairs viewed themselves as the elected representatives of their faculty colleagues, rather than as administrators of departments. Administrators reported a general lack of cooperation and communication at the department chair level, even among chairs within the same college. They often viewed themselves as fighting for their departments against the administration (dean and provost).

PAGE 129

119 Communication at the top of the academic affairs administration was perceived by administrators as effective. Communication down to faculty and back up to the deans through the department chairs was perceived by administrators as ineffective. The only evidence of a team concept in student affairs at Beta State University was at the departmental level. Administrators were collegial, but most departments did not work together on projects. The exceptions were a few small departments which combined resources to address similar goals through joint programs. Although the vice president had implemented some divisional committees and awards, there was little sense of divisional camaraderie. Some administrators explained that the awards had turned into a popularity contest where departments competed with each other for votes from students. Some administrators also perceived departmental competition for financial resources. Additionally, there was a perception among many departmental directors that the vice president had favorite departments within the division. Communication within the division was informal and came from the divisional directors' meeting and executive committee meetings, each of which was held once per month. Not all administrators had electronic mail, although staff who had access to electronic mail used it. There was not much formal communication through memos. In general the administrators in student affairs felt unappreciated within the institution. They talked of low salaries, lack of recognition, and low morale. A couple of the directors said they did not want their departments in the student affairs division because of its low status within the institution. This common perception of their low status within the institution did develop some comrade within the division.

PAGE 130

120 Customer orientation . The OCAO results showed some significant differences between administrator perceptions of customer orientation in the academic affairs division and student affairs division (Table 4). The academic affairs administrators mean score was 16.774, with a standard deviation of 3.631. The academic affairs mean fell in the average range for normative scores in this category. The student affairs mean score was 21.176, with a standard deviation of 2.555. The student affairs mean fell at the low end of the high range for normative scores in this category. In order to analyze the variance in this cultural element an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied between the perceptions of academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators on customer orientation. The calculated F-Value of 19.58 indicated there was a significant difference at the .05 level in the administrators' perceptions of how they viewed their customers. It was clear that the primary customer of the academic affairs administrators was faculty. Administrators discussed providing services for faculty and increasing their productivity. Administrators also spoke of satisfying the state legislature and the state and local politicians. Being aware of the political ramifications of decisions was very important as legislators from the area were influential in state politics. The administrators also stressed the importance of providing academic programs for the communities that met their needs. Academic administrators talked about the importance of quality in teaching and the importance of education, but not about the individual student. Administrators within student affairs at Beta State University were extremely focused on their customer, the students. Staff provided numerous examples of their dedication and work to provide students with quality services. The division adopted a customer service approach and students were

PAGE 131

121 asked to complete questionnaires on the effectiveness of departmental services. The departments also worked hard to publicize their services to the students. Administrators reported that the institution itself was not an inviting environment for students. The student affairs division was working, along with the new president, to move the entire institution to be a more friendly and welcoming environment for students. There seemed to be little emphasis on serving any other constituency within the institution or the community by the student affairs division. The only exception was athletics where athletic director and the vice president were trying to attract boosters for the athletic teams. Cultural streng th. The OCAQ results showed no significant differences between administrator perceptions of Cultural Strength in the academic affairs division and student affairs division at Beta State University. The academic affairs administrators mean score was 16.103 with a standard deviation of 2.664. The academic affairs mean fell in the top part of the low range for normative scores in this category. The student affairs mean score was 17.125, with a standard deviation of 1.962 (Table 3). The student affairs mean fell at the bottom of the average range for normative scores in this category. These two means were the closest of the five cultural elements at Beta State University. Academic administrators generally agreed that the culture in academic affairs was still evolving as the institution was evolving. New administrators identified three basic assumptions that guided behavior in the division. The first assumption was that much of the institution's identity was related to it's location in a political state. The second assumption was that growth was the primary factor that determined decisions at the institution. The third

PAGE 132

122 assumption they identified was that Beta State University was going to continue to be "on the move." Although administrators had a difficult time agreeing on a common culture, they did identify some basic values they thought were present in academic affairs. 1. Sense of morality/academic integrity--Administrators thought the current academic affairs leadership had a good sense of integrity that guided their decision making. Mid-level academic administrators believed the top academic administrators were truthful and could be trusted. 2. Quality education— A quality general education was valued highly. Academic administrators primarily emphasized an undergraduate education. 3. Sense of fairness—Administrators were treated with a sense of fairness. Favoritism did not have a place in this academic affairs administration. 4. Individuality-Academic administrators had a sense of independence and were allowed considerable autonomy within some boundaries. Academic freedom was highly valued by everyone. 5. Diversity-A number of academic administrators mentioned a commitment to diversity in the faculty and student body. Their definition of diversity included race, age, and part-time students. The administrative culture of student affairs at Beta State University was directly related to the institutional culture and the state's political environment. New administrators described some basic assumptions that influenced daily decisions within the division. The first was that the institution was only 30 years old so it was still developing. The second basic assumption was that the state and local political environment had a major

PAGE 133

123 impact on decisions within the institution and administrators needed to be aware of the political ramifications of their decisions. Although administrators within the division were quite diverse in their thoughts about the division, they did agree upon some basic values that guided their work: 1. Commitment to students— The value all administrators mentioned was their commitment to students. This involved basic services to help students be successful and programs to help them develop as individuals. 2. Diversity— There was a strong commitment to diversity within the institution. The campus attracted students of all races and ages and student affairs staff worked hard to make students feel welcome. 3. Worth of the individual— Many administrators emphasized the value of allowing people to be themselves. There was an acknowledgment that everyone was different and those differences accepted. They treated people as individuals. 4. Hard work— Everyone admitted to working long hours to accomplish their jobs. Administrators felt they did the best they could with limited resources. 5. Independence--Administrators valued their autonomy and independence to run their own programs. 6. Friendly work environment— Despite concerns about competition within the division, administrators said Beta State University was a relaxed and friendly work environment. They also described cooperation among colleagues within the division on some projects. Beta State University summary The results of the (XAQ and the interviews reinforced the number of different perceptions between the administrative culture in academic affairs

PAGE 134

i 124 and the administrative culture in student affairs at Beta State University. The similarities and differences in the means for each cultural element, separated by division, are graphically shown on a bar graph (Figure 3). Beta State University I Academic Affairs I Student Affairs 20.471 Manage. Achieving Change Goals 20.294 17.7 Teamwork 21.176 16.774 Customer Orient. 17.125 Cultural Strength Fi gure 3 Bar graph showing means of cultural elements in academic affairs and student affairs at Beta State University. The two administrative divisions at Beta State University showed a number of differences in the five cultural elements. Because of the institution's growth. Managing Change was constant at Beta State University, particularly in academic affairs. The provost's office and deans were open to change; however, there was resistance from department chairs and faculty. Although there had be some changes within the structure of the student affairs division, there was an attitude that division-wide change did not occur readily. Program changes within departments were more apparent than divisional changes. There was a significant difference in how the two

PAGE 135

125 divisions Achieved Goals. The academic affairs division was so busy managing the constant growth that there was little emphasis on creating divisional goals. Student affairs administrators were clearly focused on their goal of providing services to the students. However, they were also concerned about the lack of divisional goals. There were also significant differences in how the two divisions Coordinated Teamwork. Academic affairs had a close team at the provost and vice president level, but little sense of team among administrators at the dean and department chair levels. Student affairs administrators felt the concept of team was more evident at the department level than the director level. Although there was departmental competition within both divisions, intradivisional communication was thought to be better in student affairs. Another significant difference between academic affairs and student affairs occurred in the administrators perception of their Customer Orientation. Academic affairs administrators' primary customer was the faculty; however, political issues often dictated their organizational structure and day-to-day activities. In student affairs the customer was clearly the student. Many of their divisional activities were also associated with serving the student by improving the campus environment. Neither administrative division perceived the Cultural Strength of their division to be high. The two divisions only shared two values, their commitment to diversity and the worth of the individual. The academic affairs division also valued a sense of morality/academic integrity, a quality education, and fairness. In addition to valuing diversity, student affairs administrators valued a commitment to students, hard work, independence, and a friendly work environment.

PAGE 136

126 Question 3 What are the similarities and differences among the three institutions' student affairs subcultures? The five cultural elements in the OCAO have been used to frame the examination of the similarities and differences among the three institutions' students affairs administrative subcultures. The specific information presented in this section was derived from individual and group interviews, since the OCAO did not identify specific qualities of the cultural elements. The results of the CXZAO did show the administrative perceptions of how well each of the student affairs divisions was performing in the five cultural elements. A bar graph showing the relationship of their mean scores on each element is depicted in Figure 4. Student Affairs Manage. Achieving Teamwork Customer Cultural Change Goals Orient. Strength Fi gure 4 Bar graph showing student affairs divisional mean scores on five cultural elements.

PAGE 137

127 Manag in g chang e Or ganizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire . The OCAQ results in this cultural element showed similar perceptions of how well each division implemented change. All three means were comparable. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the three student affairs divisions mean on Managing Change to determine if there was any significant difference. The F-value of 2.71 with proportional value of .0767 showed no significant difference in Managing Change at the .05 level. The means and standard deviation for each student affairs division's score in this cultural element are shown in Table 5. Table 5 Student Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Managing Chang e Institution Mean Standard Deviation Gamma University 21.905 3.375 Alpha College 19.357 3.500 Beta State University 20.471 2.787 Similarities . All three divisions of student affairs seemed open to change within their organization and programs; however, change was often inhibited because of financial restraints in each of the divisions. When change did occur, it seemed that change was generally initiated from administrators at the department level; however, the vice presidents at the two

PAGE 138

128 state institutions encouraged change more than the dean at Alpha College. If the change involved political implications, the vice president/dean was involved in the discussions. Another commonality was that staff responsible for specific programs were encouraged to make decisions about those programs. If the administrators had developed trust in their capabilities, they were given the autonomy to run their programs. They kept their supervisors informed, but micro-management from the top did not seem to exist in any of the three divisions. Differences . The primary difference in the three student affairs divisions was in the way change occurred. The student affairs division at Gamma University was more proactive in how they approached change than the other two institutions. The other two divisions seemed to create change as a reaction to some event or situation. Although all three divisions wanted to improve, Gamma University was more forceful, creative, and proactive than the other two divisions. All the divisions obtained input from a variety of administrators and others prior to implementing change. The amount of input received and its sources were quite different. At Beta State University decisions were made by the specific program director, with consultation from the vice president. It appeared that the central staff did not discuss programmatic changes within the division; only the administrators directly involved in the program had those types of discussions. At Alpha College the central staff were involved in the discussion about change although the dean made the final decision. At Gamma University the central staff discussed major program changes. At Gamma University it was also common to establish a task force or committee of staff and students to address topics of concern. The task force would then make

PAGE 139

129 recommendations to the vice president, who would have the central staff discuss the recommendations before a decision was made. The student affairs divisions in the two state schools (Gamma University and Beta State University) seemed to place more emphasis on the politics of a situation and manage political situations more effectively than the Alpha College division. The state institutions had more politicians influencing their programs than did the private institution. Change that necessitated personnel or support from outside divisions or agencies was more likely to be successful in the two state institutions. Summary . The three student affairs administrative divisions shared a number of similarities regarding how they managed change. Most of the administrators were open to change. Another similarity was that the department directors were given a great deal of autonomy in making decisions. The administrators also believed that the student affairs division was successful in making a positive impact on the institution. Politics played an important role in divisional change, particularly at the state institutions. The state institutions were more concerned with external politics and the private institution was more concerned with internal politics. The differences in Managing Change were relatively minor. Gamma University was more prevalent and proactive in initiating change than the other two divisions. Participatory management at the top management level was also more prevalent at Gamma University and Alpha College than at Beta State University. Achieving goals Or ganizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire . The OCAQ results in the element of Achieving Goals among the three student affairs divisions

PAGE 140

130 showed similar perceptions. All three means were comparable. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the three student affairs divisions mean on Achieving Goals to determine if there was any significant difference. The F-value of 1.15 with proportional value of .3244 showed no significant difference in Achieving Goals at the .05 level. The means and standard deviation for each student affairs division's score in this cultural element is shown in Table 6. The relatively high standard deviation score indicated there was more discrepancy in administrators perception of goals than in some of the other cultural elements. Table 6 Student Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Achieving Goals Institution Mean Standard Deviation Gamma University 20.950 3.268 Alpha College 18.929 4.178 Beta State University 20.000 4.138 Similarities. All three student affairs divisions had the same overall goals: service to their students, providing student development opportunities, and improving the campus environment so students were comfortable. All three divisions seemed to put service first, student development second, and personalizing the campus environment third. The divisions also had a service mentality towards the rest of the institution, particularly the academic affairs division. They viewed themselves as a resource to academic affairs on matters relating to students.

PAGE 141

131 The three divisions tried to position themselves as partners with academic affairs by assuming tasks that were traditionally associated with academic affairs and directly tied to the institutional mission. Gamma University assumed responsibility for admissions and the physical education complex; Alpha College had responsibility for academic advising; and Beta State University assumed responsibility for admissions and athletics. All three divisions assessed their ability to achieve their goals as good, especially given the financial constraints within the divisions. They believed their administrators were willing to do what was necessary to have successful programs. All of the vice presidents/deans attributed much of the success in goal achievement to the dedicated administrators and staff who truly cared about the students and the division's programs. Student affairs administrators knew their importance to the students and the campus environment and believed in their goals. Piffgrencgs. The primary difference among the three student affairs divisions on Achieving Goals was the emphasis placed on their goals and mission. Administrators at Beta State University and Alpha College did not articulate their goals and mission as clearly as administrators at Gamma University. Gamma University student affairs administrators had a better collective knowledge of their goals. Gamma University administrators also seemed to have a higher drive to improve their programs and achieve their goals than administrators in the other two institutions. Summary. The three student affairs divisions shared a number of goals. The administrators common goals were to provide services to students to assist them in being successful, to provide student development opportunities, and to improve the campus environment for students. Student affairs administrators also viewed their division as being a partner with academic affairs and as a

PAGE 142

132 service provider for the institution. Administrators in all three student affairs divisions felt they achieved their goals well, especially given their financial restraints. The only difference in the area of Achieving Goals was the degree to which each of the divisions could articulate their goals. Administrators at Beta State University and Alpha College said the emphasis was on departmental rather than divisional goals. Coordinated teamwork Or ganizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire . The OCAO results in this cultural element showed similar perceptions by the three sets of student affairs administrators. All three means were comparable. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the three student affairs divisions mean on Coordinated Teamwork to determine if there was any significant difference. The F-value of 3.16 with proportional value of .0511 showed a significant difference in Coordinated Teamwork at the .05 level. To determine where the difference occurred, Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variability was performed on the scores in this cultural element. The test showed that student affairs administrators at Alpha College significantly perceived themselves less of a team than did student affairs administrators at Gamma University. The means and standard deviation for each student affairs division's score in this cultural element is shown in Table 7. The lower standard deviation also indicated there was more consensus on this cultural element than with the two previous two cultural elements.

PAGE 143

133 Table 7 Student Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Coordinating Teamwork Institution Mean Standard Deviation Gamma University 21.000 2.302 Alpha College 19.071 2.165 Beta State University 20.294 2.173 Similarities . All three student affairs divisions described administrators within their divisions as cooperative and collegial with one another. If there was a joint project that needed administrators from various departments to complete the task, it would get done in a collaborative manner. Although administrators could work together, this was not the norm for any of the divisions as most day to day projects and programs were departmentalized. Lateral communication in the division seemed to be good in all three institutions. Department directors and staff under them seemed to have an informal network of people within the student affairs division on whom they could call for assistance. Another commonality was the interpersonal relationships within the division. Interpersonal relationships with their colleagues seemed important to most of the student affairs administrators. All three divisions sponsored some departmental and divisional social activities. These socials were primarily used as a form of team building, an opportunity to see people from other areas, and as motivation. Although interpersonal relationships and a sense of team was important to all three divisions, only at Gamma University was the student affairs division referred to as a "family." The interpersonal

PAGE 144

134 relationships in that division seemed closer than in the other institutions. Gamma University also had more traditions than did the other divisions. Differences . Most of the differences seemed related to interpersonal dynamics rather than to structural or cultural differences. For example, most administrators said there was no competition within the division. This was true for Alpha College and seemed formerly to have been a true description of Gamma University and Beta State University. However, the addition of admissions to the student affairs division at Gamma University, and the support admissions received from academic affairs, had created some envy on the part of other student affairs administrators. They did not talk of competition but did express envy that their department was not given the same resources or similar campus recognition. Likewise, the creation of divisional awards and the perception of favoritism at Beta State University created jealousy among some student affairs administrators. Another difference related to communication patterns. AH three divisions relied primarily on informal communication via central staff meetings to relay information to lower level administrators. At Gamma University and Alpha College these central staff meetings also involved discussing pertinent issues within the division. This gave department directors more voice in divisional activities and information about potential changes in other departments. At Beta State University the central staff meetings were used for information purposes only. There seemed to be little discussion of divisional issues among the central staff; hence, department chairs generally did not know what was going on in other departments within the division. Trust is an important quality in organizational culture. Trust between the vice president and the administrators at Gamma University was very

PAGE 145

135 apparent. Administrators reported trust created an environment for open communication and close teamwork. Trust was not as apparent at Alpha College and Beta State University. Summary . Student affairs administrators from all three divisions described the teamwork in the division as cooperative and coUegial. Lateral communication was good among the various levels of administrators as administrators had developed interpersonal relationships which facilitated communication. These interpersonal relationships helped develop a sense of team within each division. Although there was a sense of team within each of the student affairs divisions, there was also some envy. At Gamma University and Beta State University there was some envy among departments which perceived themselves as having lower status within the institution or with the vice president. Some of the administrators also expressed a lack of trust in the vice president at Alpha College and Beta State University. Customer orientation Organizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire . The OCAO results in this cultural element showed similar perceptions among student affairs administrators. The administrators at all three institutions scored their perception of Customer Orientation higher than any of the other cultural elements. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the three student affairs divisions mean to determine if there was any significant difference in the cultural element of Customer Orientation. The F-value of .29 with proportional value of .7464 showed no significant difference at the .05 level. The means and standard deviation for each student affairs division's score in this cultural element is shown in Table 8.

PAGE 146

136 Table 8 Student Affairs Comoarison of Means and Standard Deviations on Customer Orientation Institution Mean Standard Deviation Gamma University 21.524 3.958 Alpha College 20.643 3.104 Beta State University 21.176 2.555 Similarities . This is the cultural element where there was the greatest amount of agreement among the three student affairs divisions. The primary customer of each division was the student. Activities which were focused toward the customer included assessing students' needs, providing services that would assist in their education, providing programs for their individual development, and being the conscious of the institution. Administrators reported this last function often involved reminding the rest of the institution to be more customer service oriented and making the campus environment more comfortable and friendly for students. All three groups of administrators also recognized that the institution was another customer of the division. To various degrees, student affairs administrators provided services to the larger institution. The division most frequently serviced was academic affairs, either by recruiting students, assisting faculty with joint programs (for example, first year experience, honors residence hall), academic advising, crisis intervention with a student, or providing general information about students. Additional customers, especially in the two state institutions (Gamma University and Beta State University), were the state legislature and local

PAGE 147

137 politicians. Many administrators recognized the importance of paying attention to politics in order to achieve their goals. Differences . There were few differences in this cultural element. Alpha College did not have elected politicians with whom to deal, but they did have influential alumni and parents who had an impact on the institution. The student affairs division at Alpha College also seemed to be less concerned with developing close ties to the faculty than the other two institutions. However, this difference could have been a result of its small size as Alpha College administrators and faculty had daily contact. Summary . The three student affairs divisions were very similar in the cultural element of Customer Orientation. The primary customer in all three divisions was the student. The administrators also saw the campus community as a customer as they felt the division of student affairs could provide needed services to the entire institution. The primary difference among the three divisions dealt with the politics of its particular situation. The state institutions also viewed state and local politicians as a constituency to be considered. Alpha College student affairs administrators did not have any external political constituents to consider. Cultural strength Organizational Cult ural Assessment Questionnaire . The OCAQ results in this cultural element again showed similar perceptions among the student affairs administrators. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the three student affairs divisions mean to determine if there was any significant difference in the cultural element of Cultural Strength. The F-value of 1.51 with proportional value of .2317 showed no significant difference at the .05 level. The means and standard deviation for each student affairs division's

PAGE 148

138 score in this cultural element is shown in Table 9. The administrators at all three institutions scored their perception of Cultural Strength lower than any of the other cultural elements. The administrators in each institution also showed the most consensus on their perceptions as the standard deviation was lower than on any other cultural element. Table 9 Student Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Cultural Streng th Institution Mean Standard Deviation Gamma University 17.918 1.910 Alpha College 17.143 1.610 Beta State University 17.125 1.962 Similarities . There were a number of similarities among the values espoused by student affairs administrators from the three institutions. The primary value of commitment to students was shared by all the divisions. This commitment was to serve and support groups of students as well as individual students. Each of the divisions placed an importance on cooperation and personal relationships within the organization. Although the closeness of personal relationships varied among the institutions, relationships with colleagues were important to the student affairs administrators. Although relationships were important, so was promoting a sense of autonomy. The administrators liked having independence to make decisions for their programs. The degree of autonomy varied from Alpha College where

PAGE 149

139 administrators "did their own thing" to Gamma University where administrators had to earn autonomy, but the concept was valued in all three divisions. Another common value was hard work. Many administrators reported it was an unwritten expectation that student affairs professionals put in extra hours. They viewed their work as a service to the students, who deserved all the support the division could provide. This work ethic may have also been tied to the belief that student affairs administrators from all three institutions viewed themselves as "second class citizens" within their institution. Another similarity was a sense of pride in what each of the divisions could accomplish with limited resources. All of the administrators discussed how well they provided services for students on their limited budgets. Differences . Although there were many similarities among the three divisions, there were also some differences. Student affairs administrators at Gamma University discussed program innovation and being on the "cutting edge" more than the other two divisions. They were also the only group to talk about the division in the sense of being a "family." Their interpersonal relationships with colleagues were discussed more strongly than in the other two divisions. It also seemed that their sense of loyalty to the vice president and the division was stronger than at the other institutions. Alpha College was also different in some respects. The smallness of the institution created a great deal of interaction among the administrators within student affairs. Administrators in the division sometimes experienced conflicts that did not always get resolved, thereby creating distrust and uneasiness among some administrators. Distrust seemed to limit the strength of the student affairs administrative culture at Alpha College. Another difference was that the administrators at Alpha did not mention the

PAGE 150

140 importance of diversity within the student population or as a value within the division. Beta State University's student affairs division was also different in a few respects. Since the institution was only about 30 years old, there were not many traditions that had meaning for the administrators. When the vice president tried to implement some traditions (such as awards), the administrators said the changes were divisive. The divisional awards have resulted in competition among the departments. Both of the other student affairs divisions expressed more pride in the division and closer interpersonal relationships than did the student affairs staff at Beta State University. The administrators were friendly towards each other, but they did not have the sense of interpersonal closeness that was present on the other two campuses. These administrators also placed more emphasis on the individual, especially in their desire for autonomy and independence in their work environment. The administrators lacked a sense of cohesion, especially among the central staff. Summary . The three student affairs divisions shared many similar values: commitment to students, the worth of the individual, cooperation and interpersonal relationships, sense of autonomy, hard work, and pride in accomplishments with limited resources. Although the three divisions shared these values, they were also different in some ways. The two state institutions emphasized the importance of promoting diversity on campus where that was not a value at Alpha College. Administrators at Gamma University were more cohesive and referred to themselves as a family. They also showed a great deal of initiative and desired to be visible and on the cutting edge within the profession. Alpha College's cultural strength was somewhat undermined by the distrust among the top administrators. At Beta State University the student

PAGE 151

141 affairs division was young and lacked cohesiveness and traditions that were apparent in the more established divisions. There was also some distrust within the division which undercut the cultural strength. Overall summary Even though these three student affairs divisions were on different types of campuses, they shared a number of similar qualities. Their customer orientation was almost identical and focused on the student. The administrators' belief in the importance of their role on campus was also extremely similar. The administrators' ability to work as a team, even though their primary work projects were departmentalized, was another similarity. All of the divisions also were open to change and improving their programs, although some did it more effectively than others. The two state institutions emphasized the importance of external and internal politics while the administrators at Alpha College emphasized internal political ramifications. A similarity which was not as positive was the student affairs perception of being "second class citizens" on their campuses. The three student affairs divisions also shared some similar values: commitment to students, the worth of the individual, cooperation and interpersonal relationships, sense of autonomy, hard work, and pride in accomplishments with limited resources. The differences among the three divisions were often related to the age of the institution. For example, the two older divisions, in Gamma University and Alpha College, involved the central administrators in discussions about change and programmatic decisions, whereas those types of discussions did not occur at Beta State University. Likewise, the cohesion among student affairs administrators was more pronounced at the two more established institutions. Another difference among the three divisions related to the degree of trust in

PAGE 152

142 the division. Trust was less apparent at Beta State University and Alpha College than at Gamma University. Another difference was the degree politics played in decision making. Staff at the two state institutions understood and paid more attention to outside political implications than did the administrators at Alpha College. Overall, the three student affairs administrative cultures were more similar than dissimilar. Question 4 What are the similarities and differences among the three institutions' academic affairs administrative subcultures? The five cultural elements in the OCAQ are used to frame the examination of the similarities and differences among the three institutions' academic affairs administrative subcultures. The specific information presented in this section was derived from individual and group interviews, since the OCAQ did not identify specific qualities of the cultural elements. The results of the OCAQ did show the administrative perceptions of how well each of the academic affairs divisions were performing in the five cultural elements. A bar graph showing the relationship of their mean scores on each element and showing the ranges of normative scores are depicted in Figure 5.

PAGE 153

143 Academic Affairs Alpha College Beta State Univ. Gamma Univ. Manage. Achieving Teamwork Customer Cultural Change Goals Orient. Strength Fi gure 5 Bar graph showing academic affairs divisional mean scores on the five cultural elements. The five cultural elements in the Organizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire are again used to present information on the similarities and differences among the three institution's academic affairs administrative subcultures. Managing change Organizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire . The OCAO results in this cultural element showed very different perceptions. The administrators at Gamma University scored their perception of Managing Change higher than did administrators from the other institutions. In fact, their mean was the only one that fell in the average range for this cultural element. Alpha College administrators showed the most consensus on their perception of managing change as their standard deviation was lower than the other

PAGE 154

: 144 institutions. Beta State University academic administrators scored this element very low, and there was a large deviation in individuals' perceptions. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the three academic affairs division's mean on Managing Change to determine if there was any significant difference. The F-value of 15.78 with proportional value of .0001 showed a significant difference in Managing Change at the .05 level. To determine where the difference occurred Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variability was performed on the scores in this cultural element. The test showed that academic affairs administrators at Gamma University perceived themselves significantly higher in this element than did academic affairs administrators at both Alpha College and Beta State University. There was no significant difference between the perception of Alpha College administrators and Beta State University administrators on this cultural element. The means and standard deviation for each academic affairs division's score in this cultural element is shown in Table 10. Table 10 Academic Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Managing Change Institution Mean Standard Deviation Gamma University 21.493 3.674 Alpha College 18.833 2.461 Beta State University 16.828 5.050 Similarities. The provosts/dean for faculty at all three institutions acknowledged the need for change in higher education. Staff in the provost

PAGE 155

145 offices were typically the source of most change proposals in academic affairs. These academic administrators were also involved in coordinating the change process. All three provosts/dean of faculty utilized task forces as a means of initiating and providing a vehicle for change. Faculty task forces were viewed as an effective method of maneuvering their agendas through faculty committees and faculty senate. Although most academic administrators in all three institutions were open and encouraged change, that was not the case with faculty. The consensus among administrators interviewed at all three institutions was that faculty were basically resistant to change in academic affairs. Even though faculty reluctance was present, the provosts/dean of faculty at the two state institutions were confident they could produce change in the division. Related to change was the method the organization used in making decisions. The three provosts/dean of faculty spoke of the importance of participatory decision making, and they all used it in one form or another. The provosts at Gamma University and Beta State University utilized participatory decision making with their assistant provosts and deans. They sent recommendations to the faculty senate when required to do so, but they preferred to obtain dean feedback and then make decisions. The faculty senates were not viewed as powerful forces in the decision-making process in the two state institutions. The dean of faculty at Alpha College did not have a "staff to provide feedback, but he did use the provost and some key faculty in that role. Alpha College's governance structure required the dean pass most proposals through the faculty senate, which was very supportive of faculty governance. The dean of faculty at Alpha College was the only division chair to consistently utilize the traditional faculty governance model.

PAGE 156

146 Differences. Change seemed to be more readily accepted at Gamma University and Beta State University than at Alpha College. The cultures at the two state institutions. Gamma University and Beta State University, were more accepting of administrator ideas and change. Both state institutions had experienced a great deal of change as a result of a new president and provost and were accustomed to change. Beta State University was particularly open to change because the institution was young and traditions were not as entrenched in their culture. The "tradition" of Alpha College and the longevity of the faculty created an environment which was not as open to change. Another difference was the outside factors that influenced change. Administrators at both state institutions spoke of the large influence state and local politicians had on the organization's structure and programs. The administrative structure, particularly at Beta State University, was a direct result of outside political decisions. On the other hand, change at Alpha College seemed to come from administrators within the institution. Another difference among the divisions was their comfort level with the change process. Although Alpha College faculty were resistant to change, everyone seemed comfortable with the process that had been used for years. Gamma University administrators also seemed comfortable with their decisionmaking and change process. On the other hand. Beta State University was not comfortable with the change process, in part because the academic administrative structure had not been in place that long. Change at Beta State University was somewhat constant because of growth. However, administrators and faculty did not seem comfortable with this constant change and evolution.

PAGE 157

147 Summary . All three academic affairs divisions did share some similar traits regarding Managing Change. Administrators in charge of the division were the primary initiators of change. Each of the provosts/dean of faculty also used faculty task forces as a method of creating change. Another similarity was that the faculty on all three campuses were viewed as resistant to change and a challenge to the change process. Change was more accepted at the state institutions. Outside influences also added more pressure for change at the state institutions. Achieving goals Or ganizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire . The OCAO results in regards to this cultural element showed different perceptions of how well the division achieved their goals. The administrators at Gamma University scored their perception of their goal achievement higher than did administrators from the other institutions. In fact, Gamma University's mean was the only one that fell in the average range for this cultural element. Alpha College administrators showed the most consensus on their perception of achieving goals as their standard deviation was lower than the other institutions. Beta State University academic administrators scored this element low, and there was a large deviation in administrators' perceptions. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the three academic affairs division's mean on Achieving Goals to determine if there was any significant difference. The F-value of 9.82 with proportional value of .0001 showed a significant difference in Achieving Goals at the .05 level. To determine where the difference occurred, Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variability was performed on the scores in this cultural element. The test showed that academic affairs administrators at Gamma University

PAGE 158

148 perceived themselves significantly higher in Achieving Goals than did academic affairs administrators at both Alpha College and Beta State University. There was no significant difference between the perception of Alpha College administrators and Beta State University administrators on this cultural element. The means and standard deviation for each academic affairs division's score in this cultural element is shown in Table 11. Table 11 Academic Affairs Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations on Achieving Goals Institution Mean Standard Deviation Gamma University 20.409 3.433 Alpha College 17.792 3.021 Beta State University 17.103 4.693 Similarities . Administrators from all three institutions agreed upon a few basic goals. Academic administrators' primary focus was on improving the academic programs. All of those interviewed talked of facilitating changes and assisting faculty to focus on ways to improve their departmental programs. Another common goal was to emphasize quality teaching. This was generally done through focusing on faculty development, emphasizing teaching methodology, and evaluation of faculty. The last commonality was their view the role academic affairs played in the institution. All academic administrators viewed their division as the primary area within the institution and the one most central to the institutional mission. Many administrators on each of the campuses expressed concern about the amount of funding and emphasis given to other divisions (student affairs and administrative affairs).

PAGE 159

149 Another similarity among the administrators was their positive evaluation of how well the academic affairs division was achieving their stated goals. Most of the central office administrators felt they were achieving their goals. Differences . Although all three divisions focused on improvement of the academic programs, it was done differently on each campus. Alpha College focused on the process of teaching and the interaction between faculty and students. Gamma University focused on improving the quality of academic programs through increasing the quality of the faculty and students. They also stressed the importance of research and tied that to quahty teaching. Beta State University emphasized improvement by providing administrative support to faculty so the faculty could concentrate on teaching. Beta State administrators also emphasized efficiency and productivity in their administrative structure. Another difference among the three divisions related to the institution's maturity and comfort level with their mission. Gamma University was an older institution, and the academic administrators were comfortable with the mission of being the most comprehensive and visible state institution. The majority of administrators were also comfortable with the emphasis on research. Alpha College was also an older institution whose academic administrators were comfortable with the academic mission of liberal arts for undergraduates and professional schools for their graduate program. However, there were some discussions and concerns about whether today's more career-oriented undergraduate student was attracted to the institution's academic mission. Beta State University was a young institution which was still developing its mission. Most of their academic administrators admitted there was little focus on mission because they were spending most of their

PAGE 160

150 time dealing with growth and df^eloping procedures. Therefore, there was some confusion about the mission and goals of the division. Summary . The three academic affairs divisions shared some commonalties regarding Achieving Goals. All academic administrators said their primary goal was developing and enhancing quality academic programs. They also placed a great deal of emphasis on improving the teaching and learning process. Another quality these academic administrators shared was their belief in the central position of the academic affairs division in the mission of the institution. The administrators also had a similar view on how well they were meeting their goals. Although the provosts/dean of faculty achieved their goals by different means, they had similar goals. The major difference was the comfort level with the division's mission. Gamma University was a more mature division and comfortable with its role in the institution. Alpha College was an older institution but contemplating its educational mission with the changing student population. Beta State University was a young institution, and the academic affairs division was still searching for a stable mission amongst all the growth and confusion. Coordinating teamwork Or ganizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire . The OCAQ results in this cultural element showed different perceptions of how well each of the academic divisions Coordinated Teamwork. The administrators at Gamma University scored their perception of their teamwork higher than did administrators from the other institutions. Again, their mean was the only one that fell in the average range for this cultural element. Gamma University administrators also showed the most consensus on their perception of coordinated teamwork as their standard deviation was lower than the other

PAGE 161

151 institutions. Alpha College academic administrators scored lowest on this element, although Beta State University administrators had the largest discrepancy in people's perceptions of Coordinated Teamwork. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the three academic affairs division's mean on Coordinating Teamwork to determine if there was any significant difference. The F-value of 13.90 with proportional value of .0001 showed a significant difference in Coordinating Teamwork at the .05 level. To determine where the difference occurred, Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variability was performed on the scores in this cultural element. The test showed that academic affairs administrators at Gamma University perceived themselves significantly higher in Coordinating Teamwork than did academic affairs administrators at both Alpha College and Beta State University. There was no significant difference between the perception of Alpha College administrators and Beta State University administrators on this cultural element. The means and standard deviation for each academic affairs division's score in this cultural element is shown in Table 12. Table 12 . . ^ . Academic Affairs Comoarison of Means and Standard Deviations on Coordinated Teamwork Institution Mean Standard Deviation Gamma University 20.375 2.755 Alpha College 17.120 3.456 Beta State University 17.700 3.697 Similarities . The primary similarity among the three academic affairs divisions regarding Coordinated Teamwork dealt with who viewed themselves

PAGE 162

152 as part of the team. The majority of department chairs on all the campuses did not view themselves as academic administrators. Department chairs primarily viewed themselves as representing the departmental faculty to the administration. Deans and provost indicated department chairs were not necessarily committed to achieving the goals established by academic affairs. The sense of team between the deans and provost at Gamma University and Beta State University was good, but it did not go any lower in the administrative structure. There was little sense of team within Alpha College because there were so few administrators above the department chair level. Competition was prevalent on all three campuses. At the two state institutions it was present at the college and department levels. At Alpha College competition was apparent at the department level. Limited resources created environments where department chairs and deans were competing for money and faculty lines. There was little collaboration among colleges or academic departments. Another commonality was the presence of autonomy among the administrators. The majority of deans and departments chairs valued autonomy and independence in directing their programs. Differences. Communication in the three academic divisions was quite different. Alpha College relied on personal communication between the dean of faculty and faculty. The dean had difficulty keeping up with the amount of individual communication from the various faculty members, as had previous deans before him. Although department chairs may have originally helped facilitate communication, they were no longer used in that capacity. Faculty Senate provided a formal communication process, but administrators said it was not very effective.

PAGE 163

153 Communication at the two state institutions followed the formal lines of authority. The deans were expected to be the conduit to the department chairs and to the faculty. There was little lateral communication among department chairs, especially among colleges. Most individuals agreed that communication between the provost and deans was open and effective. Communication down to the department chairs and faculty and back up to the provost was less effective. Summary . Although the size of the institution affected the sense of team and communication in academic affairs divisions, there were some commonalties. A sense of team only existed among those administrators who reported to the provost. Department chairs did not view themselves as part of the academic affairs administrative team. Another commonality was that the competition for money and resources inhibited collaboration among colleges and departments. Academic administrators valued the independence and autonomy afforded them by the provost/dean of faculty. Alpha College relied on individual informal communication in combination with Faculty Senate. The two state-affiliated divisions used more formal lines of communication through the deans, although it was not effective past the dean level. Customer orientation Organizati onal Cultural Assessment Questionnaire . The OCAQ results in this cultural element showed different perceptions of how well each of the divisions focused on their customer. The administrators at Gamma University and Alpha College scored their perception of their Customer Orientation significantly higher than did administrators from Beta State University. Both of their means fell in the high end of the average range for this cultural

PAGE 164

154 element. Gamma University and Alpha College administrators also showed the most consensus on their perception of Customer Orientation as their standard deviation was lower than Beta State University. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the three academic affairs division's mean on Customer Orientation to determine if there was any significant difference. The Fvalue of 15.69 with proportional value of .0001 showed a significant difference in Customer Orientation at the .05 level. To determine where the difference occurred, Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variability was performed on the scores in this cultural element. The test showed that academic affairs administrators at Gamma University and Alpha College perceived themselves significantly higher in Customer Orientation than did academic affairs administrators at Beta State University. There was no significant difference between the perception of Alpha College administrators and Gamma University administrators on this cultural element. The means and standard deviation for each academic affairs division's score this cultural element is shown in Table 13. Table 13 Academic Affairs Comoarison of Means and Standard Deviations on Customer Orientation Institution Mean Standard Deviation Gamma University 20.375 2.895 Alpha College 20.320 2.982 Beta State University 16.774 3.631 Similarities. All three academic divisions viewed faculty and the institution as primary customers. The provost/dean of faculty discussed the

PAGE 165

155 amount of time and energy spent on providing support and guidance to faculty and academic departments. At the department chair level the primary customer was the student. Department chairs from all three institutions spoke of the importance of the interaction between students and faculty and the teaching process. Differences . There were more differences in the cultural element of Customer Orientation than similarities. Although department chairs viewed students as a primary customer, that was not the case with most upper level academic administrators. However, Alpha College academic administrators did discuss students a great deal and viewed them as a primary customer. Students were rarely mentioned in the interviews with deans and provosts at Gamma University and Beta State University. Academic administrators at Gamma University and Beta State University also viewed state and local politicians as primary customers. They spent much time dealing with political issues and the surrounding community needs. Alpha College administrators did not view politicians as primary customers and were not extensively involved in local community activities. In general, academic administrators at Beta State University had less agreement about their Customer Orientation than did academic administrators in the other two institutions. Summary. Academic administrators at all three institutions viewed the faculty and the institution as the primary customers they served. The two state institutions also viewed politicians and community needs as an important customer. Students were viewed as important customers by everyone at Alpha College but only by department chairs at the two state institutions. Cultural strength

PAGE 166

156 Or ganizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire . The OCAQ results in this cultural element showed similar perceptions of the Cultural Strength within each of the academic divisions. This cultural element means were lower than the means of any other elements. The administrators at Gamma University scored their perception of their Cultural Strength slightly higher than did the other institutions; however, the mean still fell at the low end of the average range. The means for Alpha College and Beta State University both fell in the high end of the low range for this cultural element. Administrators from all three institutions perceived low Cultural Strength, and their smaller standard deviation scores showed more consensus than on any of the other cultural elements. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the three academic affairs division's mean on Cultural Strength to determine if there was any significant difference. The F-value of 7.49 with proportional value of .0008 showed a significant difference in Cultural Strength at the .05 level. To determine where the difference occurred, Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variability was performed on the scores in this cultural element. The test showed that academic affairs administrators at Gamma University perceived themselves significantly higher in Cultural Strength than did academic affairs administrators at Beta State University. There was no significant difference between the perception of Alpha College administrators and Gamma University or Beta State University administrators on this cultural element. The means and standard deviation for each academic affairs division's score in this cultural element is shown in Table 14.

PAGE 167

157 Table 14 Academic Affairs ComDarison of Means and Standard Deviations on Cultural Strength Institution Mean Standard Deviation Gamma University 17.918 1.963 Alpha College 16.880 2.369 Beta State University 16.103 2.664 Similarities . Academic administrators from the three institutions did share some common values which they indicated guided the academic affairs division. The foremost value was providing a quality education for the students. Another value they all agreed on was the importance of the individual and autonomy. Administrators stressed the importance of everyone being accepted and being allowed to perform their job as they saw fit, within basic parameters. Differences . Interviews with academic administrators revealed many views concerning the strength of the divisions' administrative culture. Although administrators from an institution may have agreed on particular values, they were not necessarily in agreement as to the strength of the culture. It was apparent from interviews and the CCAQ that Beta State University academic administrators had more discrepancies in their view of culture than did administrators at the other two institutions. Gamma University and Alpha University academic administrators shared more values than did those from Beta State University. Gamma and Alpha administrators shared the value of civility within the work environment which was not mentioned at Beta State University. Beta State

PAGE 168

158 University's academic affairs division had fewer common values. Some administrators attributed their few common values to the fact that the institution was young and had not fully developed. Summary . Academic affairs administrators perceptions of their organization's cultural strength was lower but more congruent than with the other four cultural elements. Academic administrators from all three institutions agreed upon two values: providing a quality education for the students and the importance of the individual and autonomy. The two more mature institutions also shared the value of civility within the work environment. The younger institution, Beta State University, espoused fewer shared values than did the other two institutions. ' Overall summary The three academic affairs divisions' perceptions of their cultural elements were rated significantly different by the administrators. Gamma University administrators rated themselves significantly higher than did administrators from Alpha College and Beta State University in the cultural elements of Managing Change, Achieving Goals, and Teamwork. Both Gamma and Alpha administrators rated themselves significantly higher than Beta State administrators in the element of Customer Orientation. Academic affairs administrators at all three institutions used similar methods of managing change, such as task forces and participatory decision making among top level administrators. The degree of success, however, was quite different. Administrators at Gamma University viewed themselves as successful in this cultural element, whereas Beta State University administrators perception was less successful. Alpha College administrators also viewed themselves as less successful because the faculty governance system often prevented change and maintained the status quo, as was the

PAGE 169

159 faculty preference. Administrators in all three divisions viewed faculty as resistant to change. All three divisions had similar goals of developing and enhancing the academic program and providing services to faculty. Gamma University administrators could espouse the division's goals more than administrators in the other two divisions. The academic affairs divisions at Alpha College and Beta State University were in the midst of reviewing aspects of the academic program so they were less focused on specific divisional goals. Administrators from all three divisions held similar positive perceptions as to their degree of success in achieving goals. The concept of teamwork was in little evidence past the provost, his immediate staff, and the deans. Department chairs at all three campuses did not view themselves as part of the administrative team. Competition and a lack of collaboration, from the dean level down, also was apparent in each of the divisions. Likewise, communication within the organization was viewed as somewhat ineffective. Gamma University administrators discussed being a team more than at the other two institutions, particularly among the deans and provost. All three academic divisions were focused on their primary constituents, the faculty and the institution. Alpha College also viewed the students as an important customer. Academic administrators at the two state institutions had to pay more attention to their political constituents (the local community and state politicians) than did the private institution. The QCAQ results showed that academic administrators viewed their respective organization as having a low degree of cultural strength. That is congruent with the few common values held by academic administrators. The

PAGE 170

160 only values common to all three divisions were the importance of providing a quality education and the importance of the individual and autonomy. The differences among the three divisions did not always align with state institution versus private institution. Although affiliation made a difference on issues such as customer orientation, where one of the primary customers for the two state institutions was politicians and the local community, sometimes the differences in cultural elements were related to the maturity of the institution. Academic administrators from the more mature institutions. Gamma University and Alpha College, consistently perceived the presence of the five cultural elements stronger than did administrators at Beta State University, the younger institution. Question 5 Is there a common organizational culture among student affairs administrative divisions, even though they may be situated in different types of institutions? There are a number of factors that contribute to creating an organizational culture. A leader can have a tremendous impact on the activities and beliefs of an organization and its members and over time can change the organization's culture. Each of the three student affairs divisions had vice presidents/deans who had been in their position at least 7 years. The vice president at Gamma University had been in the division of student affairs for 8 years prior to becoming vice president. The dean of students at Alpha College had been a faculty member at the institution prior to joining student affairs in 1988. The vice president at Beta State University had previously been a vice president at another institution. Information provided in the analysis to Question 3 concerning the similarities and differences in the student affairs divisions is used to answer

PAGE 171

161 Question 5. Even though the three institutions were different in their mission and student body, there were some similarities among them. The cultural element of Managing Change showed commonalties in how administrators viewed change. Student affairs administrators in all three divisions were open to change, although change was often inhibited because of financial restraints. Another factor influencing change was the politics of the situation. The state institutions were often influenced by outside politics, whereas Alpha College had more internal politics that influenced decisions. Another commonality was the high amount of autonomy given administrators to manage their own programs. Within the cultural element of Achieving Goals the three student affairs organizations had four similarities. The organizations had common primary goals: (a) service to their students, (b) providing student development opportunities, (c) improving the campus environment so students were comfortable, and (d) service to the institution, particularly academic affairs. The administrators attributed the divisions' success in goal achievement to the dedicated and talented staff. In the area of Coordinated Teamwork there were also a number of •s similarities. Day-to-day projects were normally confined within departments; however, the administrators sometimes collaborated on special projects involving representatives from various departments. In addition to working together, student affairs administrators had interpersonal and social relationships with their colleagues. Although the "family" atmosphere that was reported at Gamma University was not found on the other two campuses, there was a sense of caring and friendliness that went beyond the normal work environment. The presence of close interpersonal relationships assisted

PAGE 172

162 in communication within the division because people felt comfortable contacting colleagues in various departments. There was a high degree of agreement among student affairs administrators on the cultural element of Customer Orientation. The primary customer of each division was the student. The programs directed towards this customer were also quite similar: (a) needs assessment, (b) services to assist in their education, (c) programs for personal development, and (d) serving as the conscience of the institution. Another customer agreed on by the three groups of administrators was their respective institution. Each of the student affairs divisions provided services to the institution, primarily academic affairs. The concept of Cultural Strength in the student affairs divisions showed many similarities. Administrators in the three organizations agreed on many of the values and beliefs that guided their organization. There were more similarities than differences in the divisions' stated values. Among the values and beliefs espoused by the student affairs administrators, four were common to all three divisions. The first value stated by most of the student affairs administrators was their commitment to students. Another value was that of autonomy as administrators were given a great deal of autonomy to direct their own programs. The third common value was the importance of a comfortable, friendly, and supportive work environment for the staff. The last common value was the emphasis placed on working hard and taking pride in the job they performed. There was another common value between the two state institutions, Beta State University and Gamma University. Administrators in both of these institutions valued the individuality and the diversity of the students and staff

PAGE 173

163 at their institutions. Personnel in these divisions of student affairs worked hard on supporting the acceptance of diversity within the campus community. Summary Many characteristics of the five organizational culture elements were common to the three student affairs divisions. Although there were differences in areas such as trust, decision making, and teamwork, the commonalties were more prevalent. There were a few similarities between the two state institutions (Gamma University and Beta State University), such as outside political groups who played important roles in the activities of the division. On the other hand, the two older divisions. Alpha College and Gamma University, shared some qualities such as tradition and teamwork that were characteristic of more established organizations. Given the similarities in how these student affairs divisions managed change, achieved their goals, coordinated teamwork, viewed their customer orientation, and perceived their cultural strength, there seems to be a common organizational culture among student affairs divisions. Question 6 Is there a common organizational culture among academic affairs administrative divisions, even though they may be situated in different types of institutions? There are a number of factors that contribute to creating an organizational culture. A leader can have a tremendous impact on the activities and beliefs of an organization and its members and over time can change the organization's culture (Schein, 1992). Each of the three academic affairs divisions had relatively new provosts/dean of faculty. Each of these administrators had been in their position less than 4 years. It was reported that the provost at Beta State University and the dean of faculty at Alpha

PAGE 174

164 College had not been able to make significant impact on the organization. It was reported that the provost at Gamma University had been able to change some aspects of the organization, in large part because the president had initiated some of the changes prior to the provost arriving. Information provided in analysis of Question 4 concerning the similarities and differences in the academic affairs divisions is used to answer this question. Even though the three institutions were very different in their mission and student body, there were some similarities among the administrative culture in academic affairs. The cultural element of Managing Change showed commonalties in how the top academic administrators orchestrated change. Ideas for change usually came from administrators in the provost/dean of faculty office and, these changes were orchestrated by the provost and his staff. It usually involved a faculty task force to guide it through the faculty governance process. Another commonality was the administrators were basically open to change, whereas the faculty were predominantly opposed to change. Within the cultural element of Achieving Goals, the three organizations had many similarities. The academic administrators reported they understood academic affairs role as being central to the institution's mission. The divisions also shared some primary goals: (a) improving the quality of academic programs and (b) emphasizing improvement in teaching. The last goal these administrators shared was their belief that the division did a good job of achieving their goals. In the area of Coordinated Teamwork there was a major similarity. Collaboration did not exist in academic affairs outside of the provost's office. The provost staff at the two state institutions, Gamma University and Beta State University, worked well together and was a supportive team. The deans at the

PAGE 175

165 two state schools reported a cooperative relationship with the provost, but the deans did not collaborate with each other as they were competing for money and positions. Department chairs on all three campuses did not view themselves as part of the administrative team but rather part of the faculty. The dean of the faculty at Alpha College did not have a group of administrators that reported to him so he really had no team. This lack of a team perspective on all three campuses may help explain the lack of communication within the divisions. Administrators at all levels spoke of the lack of communication, especially to and from faculty. The commonality in the cultural element of Customer Orientation was the focus on faculty and the institution as the primary customers of academic affairs divisions. This focus was espoused by academic administrators with a position of dean and higher. Department chairs on all three campuses viewed students as one of their primary customers. Students were also viewed as a primary customer by top administrators at Alpha College. Among all the values espoused by the academic administrators, only two were common to all three divisions. The majority of administrators interviewed on each campus shared the values of providing a quality education and allowing for the individuality and autonomy of their members. There was not a great deal of Cultural Strength in the academic affairs divisions' culture as many of the administrators did not agree on the values and beliefs of their organization. The strength of the culture seemed to have a direct relationship to the age of the institution. Academic administrators from Gamma University and Alpha College, the more established, older institutions, showed more congruence and a higher perception of their Cultural Strength than did administrators at Beta State University. Beta State University's

PAGE 176

166 academic affairs division and its organizational culture were still young and developing. There were a number of similarities among the academic affairs divisions which could lead one to the conclusion that some aspects of organizational culture were common to all campuses. On these three campuses, academic administrators were the change agents on campus and worked to create the changes that faculty generally opposed. Academic organizations, especially in the state institutions, generally utilized participatory decision making, at least among top level administrators. Academic affairs administrators were also comfortable knowing their role of providing quality educational programs in the institution was central to the institution's mission. Part of the academic affairs culture emphasized individual effort over teamwork, at least on the part of deans and department chairs. The academic affairs culture was predominantly concerned with its own development, in terms of program development and faculty development. The organization was aware of other constituents, such as students, politicians, alumni, and community, and took care of those needs as they arose, but that was not their primary focus. Academic affairs culture was not perceived as being particularly strong. This was probably related to the emphasis on autonomy and the departmental disciplines rather than qualities such as teamwork, mutual goals, and shared values. There were some similarities between the two state institutions. Gamma University and Beta State University, which were not common to Alpha College. Within the two state institutions, decisions were primarily made using a participatory decision-making model among the provost and deans. The faculty were not typically involved in decision making except when required

PAGE 177

167 by the faculty governance structure. Another similarity for the two state institutions was the communication pattern in academic affairs. Both divisions used a formal communication network of memos and verbal communication from the provost down through the deans and department chairs. Most administrators reported that the divisions' communication network was ineffective. Another similarity between the two state institutions was the importance politicians and the local community played in the institution's activities. Politicians and the local tax payers (community) played a larger role in the organization's decisions than in the private institution. There were some similarities in culture that related to the age of the institution rather than size or type of institution. For example, Gamma University and Alpha College both showed a stronger culture and a more congruent culture than did Beta State University. The older institutions and divisions also created more similar values and more comfort with the governance procedures, even though those procedures were quite different. Summary These three academic affairs divisions, on three different types of campuses, shared a number common cultural elements. Not all aspects of the culture were the same; however, there were number similarities, particularly between the two state institutions. There were also a couple of similarities between the cultures of the private liberal arts college. Alpha College, and Gamma University because both institutions were older and stable in their mission and growth.

PAGE 178

168 Chapter Summary The analysis of the Or ganizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire and the interviews provided informative data regarding the organizational culture in two administrative units (academic affairs and student affairs) within institutions of higher education. Question 1 Question 1 explored any shared values among administrators in student affairs and academic affairs at each of the institutions. It was discovered that the two administrative divisions at Gamma University shared more values than did the student affairs and academic affairs divisions at the other two institutions. Question 2 Question 2 examined the cultural similarities and differences between the academic affairs division and student affairs division at each institution. Gamma University The two administrative divisions Gamma University shared a number of similarities in the cultural elements. Administrators in both divisions employed similar strategies in managing change and were open to change and improvement. The two divisions were goal oriented and typically achieved the goals which were primarily established by the top administrators within the divisions. They also shared similar perspectives in their Customer Orientation. The two divisions at Gamma University also shared similar values, such as innovation and a commitment to improvement, pride in the institution and its traditions, attention to the political ramifications of decisions, loyalty to the institution, and administrative autonomy.

PAGE 179

169 There was a difference between the two divisions in the cultural element of Coordinating Teamwork. The academic affairs division had an effective team at the provost and dean level; however, that team did not extend to department chairs. The concept of teamwork was present at all three administrative levels within the student affairs division. Alpha College There were a number of similarities between the administrative culture in academic affairs and student affairs at Alpha College. Both divisions valued their commitment to the students' development and to teaching. They also valued their own autonomy and their involvement in the decision-making process. All of these attributes could be interpreted as components of a positive organizational culture. Administrators in both divisions spoke about the lack of teamwork, especially across departmental lines. Students affairs worked together in times of crisis, but that did not seem to be their normal pattern. They did, however, work well as a team within departments. Both divisions also mentioned a lack of clear division direction and vision to guide their activities. Likewise, administrators in both divisions reported a lack of trust in the top administrators. Although the two administrative cultures shared some commonalties, they were quite different in other ways. Academic affairs seemed less cohesive as a unit than student affairs. There was also more internal competition for resources within academic affairs. On the other hand, student affairs administrators showed more frustration with their decision-making process and their ability to deal with change. Beta State University

PAGE 180

170 The cultural differences between the administrators in academic affairs and student affairs were more pronounced at Beta State College than at either of the other institutions. Both divisions were developing and evolving as the institution grew. Both divisions were making changes, but academic affairs were initiating their changes, whereas student affairs seemed to have changed as a reaction to a policy or incident. Both organizations were so busy doing what was needed to keep the division operating that there was a lack of goal setting. The sense of team was present in both division, but at different levels. Academic affairs had a cohesive team at the top of their administrative chart but fragmentation at the department chair level. Student affairs administrators worked together at the department level but were experiencing some divisiveness in the top levels of administration. Student affairs administrators were focused on their customer, the students, whereas academic affairs administrators were focused on providing academic programs. Neither division showed a strong organizational culture. However, student affairs administrators were consistently more homogenous in their perceptions of their culture than were academic affairs administrators. Question 3 Even though these three student affairs divisions were on different types of campuses, they shared a number of similar qualities. Their customer orientation was focused on the student. Their belief in the importance of the student affairs role on campus was also similar. They also shared the ability to work as a team, even though their primary work projects were departmentalized. All of the divisions were open to change and improving their programs, although some did it more effectively than others.

PAGE 181

171 The three student affairs divisions also shared some similar values: commitment to students, the worth of the individual, cooperation and interpersonal relationships, sense of autonomy, hard work, pride in accomplishments with limited resources, and a perception of being "second class citizens." Question 4 There were a number of cultural similarities among the three academic affairs divisions. All three groups of academic administrators used similar strategies to implement change in their divisions. The administrators also viewed faculty as resistant to change. All three divisions had similar primary goals of developing and enhancing the academic program and top administrators in the division held similar positive perceptions as to their degree of success in achieving the goals. The three academic affairs divisions viewed their primary customers to be the faculty and institution. The concept of teamwork was in little evidence past the provost, his staff, and the deans. Department chairs at all three campuses did not view themselves as part of the administrative team. Competition was apparent in each of the academic affairs divisions, at both the dean and department chair levels. The emphasis on autonomy and the lack of collaboration was strong in each of the academic affairs divisions. The differences among the three divisions did not always align with state institution versus private institution. Often the differences in cultural elements were related to the maturity of the institution. Academic administrators from the older institutions. Gamma University and Alpha College, consistently perceived the presence of the five cultural elements stronger than did administrators at Beta State University, the younger institution. The administrators in Gamma University and Alpha College were

PAGE 182

172 also more congruent in their views than were administrators at Beta State University. Question 5 Many characteristics of the five organizational culture elements were common to the three student affairs divisions. Although there were differences in areas such as trust, decision making, and teamwork, the commonalties were more prevalent. There were a few similarities between the two state institutions, such as outside political groups who played important roles in the activities of the division. On the other hand, the two older divisions. Alpha College and Gamma University, shared some qualities such as tradition and teamwork that were characteristics of a more established organization. Given the similarities in how these student affairs divisions managed change, achieved their goals, coordinated teamwork, viewed their customer orientation, and perceived their cultural strength, there seems to be a common organizational culture among student affairs divisions. Question 6 Based on the cultures of these three academic affairs divisions, one could say that academic affairs administrative culture is similar on different types of campuses. Not all aspects of the culture were the same, especially in the cultural element of organizational values and teamwork. However, there were similarities in areas such as mission and goals, customer orientation, and managing change. This was particularly true between the state supported institutions. Gamma University and Beta State University. Being older, wellestablished institutions. Alpha College and Gamma University also showed a couple of cultural similarities that Beta State University did not exhibit.

PAGE 183

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter provides a review of the study and the appropriateness of using organizational culture as a construct to examine administrative divisions within higher education. The chapter includes a review of the study, review of the findings, conclusions, implications for the profession, implications for future research, and concluding remarks. Review of the Study The purpose of this study was to explore the similarities and differences between academic affairs divisions and student affairs divisions using the construct of organizational culture. Cultural studies have assisted in understanding the activities, interactions, and decisions within organizations (Bergquist, 1992; Kuh & Whitt, 1988b; Maslund, 1985; Sergiovanni, 1984; Tierney, 1988). Institutions of higher education are composed of several subcultures which work together although they are sometimes at odds with each other in accomplishing their specific goals and furthering the institutional goals and mission. This study examined the subcultures of academic affairs administrators and student affairs administrators. These two subcultures were selected because these administrators often work on joint projects and are important in the administration of higher education institutions. Administrators in these two subcultures also come from different perspectives. Academic affairs administrators are often former professors who seek the challenge of administering academic programs. Student affairs administrators often come 173

PAGE 184

174 from a counseling or student development perspective that stresses personal growth, development, and education of the whole student. There was limited literature on administrative subcultures in higher education. This study, therefore, may serve as a baseline of information which can be used for future research. To expand the significance of the study, research was conducted on three different campuses. The goal was to examine the cultural characteristics of the academic affairs division and the student affairs division on different types of campuses to determine if the administrative culture in these two divisions were institutionally based or occupationally based. The institutions selected for the study were a large comprehensive state university (Gamma University), an urban commuter institution (Beta State University), and a traditional liberal arts college (Alpha College). The study combined qualitative and quantitative research methods to examine the similarities and differences between the two administrative divisions from an organizational culture perspective. The instrument selected to assess the administrators' perception of the culture in their respective division was Marshall Sashkin's Organizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire. The OCAQ was selected because it had been modified for higher education, and it generated a quantitative score for administrators' perception of the presence of five elements of organizational culture (Managing Change, Achieving Goals, Coordinating Teamwork, Customer Orientation, and Cultural Strength) within the division. The quantitative scores allowed for some comparison of perceptions about the presence of these cultural elements between the academic affairs and student affairs administrators on each campus. The scores also allowed a comparison of the perception of organizational culture among the three academic affairs divisions and among

PAGE 185

175 the three student affairs divisions. Although Dr. Sashkin does provide some normative scores for the OCAO . these scores were not from higher education institutions. Caution should be used in comparing the scores from these six divisions to the normative scores mentioned by Dr. Sashkin. While the OG^ indicated a perception of how well the organization was performing in the five cultural elements, it did not describe qualities of the division's culture. Individual and group interviews were, therefore, conducted on each campus to identify the qualities present in each administrative division's organizational culture. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in the manner prescribed by Edgar Schein (1992) to encourage participants to describe significant events in the history of the administrative division and discover the underlying assumptions and values which guided the organization. The interviews also explored the cultural elements in the OCAO in more depth. Review of the Finding s The study's findings are presented in association with each of the research questions. Research Question 1 What are the shared assumptions, values and beliefs among administrators in student affairs divisions and in academic affairs divisions on the campus? 1. The shared values between administrators in academic affairs and administrators in student affairs at Alpha College were a commitment to assist the students, the importance of quality teaching and the learning process, the importance of a collaborative decision-making structure, and a commitment to work hard for the institution.

PAGE 186

176 2. The two administrative divisions at Gamma University shared more values than did the other two institutions. The values of loyalty and pride in the institution and division, an emphasis on change and innovation, a striving for excellence, civility in their interpersonal relationships, a commitment to provide programs for students, and valuing administrators who were politically astute were present in both divisions. 3. The common values between the two administrative divisions at Beta State University included a commitment to diversity and administrator autonomy and independence. Research Question 2 What are the similarities and differences between the organizational culture of academic affairs administrators and the organizational culture of student affairs administrators on each campus? 1. Within each campus, administrators in student affairs rated each of the cultural elements higher than did academic affairs administrators. 2. Administrators in both academic affairs and student affairs in all three institutions rated the cultural element of Cultural Strength lower than other cultural elements. 3. The primary customers of the three academic affairs divisions were the faculty and academic programs, whereas the primary customer for student affairs divisions was the students. 4. The administrative culture in both divisions at Gamma University utilized similar strategies in Managing Change and Goal Achievement. 5. At Gamma University the student affairs division had a more cohesive team and better communication than did the academic affairs division.

PAGE 187

177 6. The academic affairs administrative culture at Alpha College exhibited a lack of teamwork, a preference for tradition and maintaining the status quo, a distrust of too much power in any administrator, an emphasis on faculty governance, and a commitment to their students. 7. The student affairs administrative culture at Alpha College exhibited good teamwork at the departmental level but some distrust at the central staff level. The division's administrators were open to change and usually achieved goals that did not require external assistance. Student affairs administrators were also committed to the students. 8. The two administrative divisions at Beta State University had more cultural differences than similarities. Academic affairs showed a cohesive team at the provost and dean level, whereas student affairs had a cohesive team at the departmental level but some distrust at the higher levels. Academic affairs was so busy managing the changes and growth that they had not developed divisional goals. Student affairs had departmental goals but administrators did not feel there were sufficient divisional goals. Although competition between departments was present in each division, the intradivisional communication was thought to be better in student affairs. 9. The OCAO instrument showed significant differences between the divisions of academic affairs and student affairs at Beta State University in the cultural elements of Managing Change, Achieving Goals, Teamwork, and Customer Orientation. Research Question 3 What are the similarities and differences among the three institutions' student affairs administrative subculture? 1. Administrators within the three student affairs divisions held similar organizational values: commitment to students, the worth of the

PAGE 188

178 individual, cooperation and interpersonal relationships, sense of autonomy, hard work, and pride in accomplishments with limited resources. 2. Administrators within the three student affairs divisions Managed Change within their organizations in a similar manner. They also were open to change, particularly programmatic changes at the department level, although Gamma University appeared to encourage it more than the other two institutions. 3. Administrators within the three student affairs divisions held similar divisional goals and perceived their role in the institution in a similar manner. 4. Administrators within the three student affairs divisions possessed a strong sense of team, particularly at the departmental level and valued interpersonal relationships within the division. 5. Administrators within these three student affairs divisions were very focused on their customers, the students, and the institution. The three divisions shared a customer service orientation for their students. 6. Administrators in student affairs were given a great deal of autonomy to run their programs. 7. The two state institutions shared two commonalties that were not present in the private institution. Student affairs administrators in the state institutions valued and promoted diversity on their campuses. They also were more attentive to political considerations from local and state politicians. 8. The (JCAQ instrument showed the student affairs division at Gamma University perceived themselves has having a significantly higher degree of Coordinated Teamwork than the student affairs division at Alpha College. 9. Student affairs administrators rated themselves higher than did academic affairs administrators in each of the cultural elements, although

PAGE 189

179 there was not a significant difference except in the element of Coordinated Teamwork. Research Question 4 What are the similarities and differences among the three institutions' academic affairs administrative subculture? 1. Administrators within the three academic affairs divisions shared similar beliefs and strategies (faculty taskforces) about Managing Change. Faculty on the three campuses were viewed as being resistant to change. 2. Decision making at the two state institutions used the participatory model among the academic administrators. Decision making at Alpha College utilized the faculty senate model which placed faculty, not the administrators, in the role of making most major academic decisions. 3. Academic administrators within the three academic affairs divisions held similar divisional goals of improving the teaching and learning process. They perceived their role in the institution as primary to it's mission. Gamma University also perceived their mission to include extensive research. 4. Administrators within the three academic affairs divisions viewed their primary customers as the faculty and the institution. Alpha College also viewed their students as a primary customer. The two state institutions viewed political constituencies as secondary customers. 5. Any sense of team within the division was among the provost/dean of faculty, his immediate staff, and individual academic deans. Even though the deans viewed themselves on the same team as the provost, there was very little collaboration among the deans. Department chairs in the three academic affairs divisions did not perceive themselves to be members of the administrative team within the division.

PAGE 190

180 6. Communication within the two state institutions used a formal process through the chain of command (provost through the dean and department chairs), which was described as ineffective. The dean of faculty at Alpha College relied on personal communication with the faculty and faculty senate. This too was viewed as ineffective by administrators. 7. The only values common to all three academic affairs divisions were the importance of providing a quality education and the importance of the individual and autonomy. 8. Gamma University academic affairs administrators rated themselves significantly higher on the OCAO than did academic affairs administrators from Alpha College and Beta State University in the cultural elements of Managing Change, Achieving Goals, and Coordinating Teamwork. 9. Both Gamma University and Alpha College academic affairs administrators rated themselves significantly higher on the CXAO than did administrators at Beta State University in the cultural element of Customer Orientation. 10. Academic administrators at the more mature institutions, Gamma University and Alpha College, perceived a stronger presence of the five cultural elements than did administrators at Beta State University. Research Question 5 Is there a common organizational culture among student affairs administrative divisions, even though they may be situated in different types of institutions? 1. The administrative cultures in these three student affairs divisions were similar.

PAGE 191

181 Research Question 6 Is there a common organizational culture among academic affairs administrative divisions, even though they may be situated in different types of institutions? 1. The academic affairs administrative cultures were not as congruent as were the three student affairs cultures. 2. The maturity of the division and the institution had a large impact on the culture. Beta State University exhibited different cultural characteristics, especially in Teamwork and Achieving Goals, than did the cultures in the more mature divisions. 3. The private institution. Alpha College, exhibited different cultural characteristics, especially in Managing Change and Customer Orientation, than did the cultures in the state affiliated academic divisions. Conclusions 1. This study demonstrated how the theoretical construct of organizational culture can be used to explain the normative beliefs, values, and assumptions within administrative organizations. These normative beliefs, values, and assumptions guide and give meaning to group behavior in an organization (Schein, 1992). This method of assessing organizations is a valuable tool for increasing the understanding of how and why individuals within an organization act as they do. Organizational culture is an effective theoretical basis to study administrative organizations. 2. The methodology of combining qualitative interviews with a quantitative survey such as Sashkin's Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire also proved to be an effective method of analyzing an organization. The QCAQ enabled the different administrative divisions to be

PAGE 192

182 statistically compared on the five cultural elements. The interviews provided more information about the normative behaviors and values associated with the cultural elements. The methodology used in this study could be replicated on other campuses and with other types of organizations. 3. The study also demonstrated the similarities and differences among student affairs administrative cultures. The high number of similarities, even though the campuses were very different, led the researcher to conclude that the administrative culture of student affairs organizations was occupationally based rather than institutionally based. 4. Unlike the student affairs culture, the academic affairs administrative culture at these three institutions did not have as many cultural similarities. However, the academic affairs administrative culture in the two v state institutions had a number of commonalties. 5. The academic affairs administrative culture at the private liberal arts institution reflected more of a faculty culture since there were few fulltime academic administrators. 6. Another conclusion of this study was that older institutions, particularly those with stable leadership, were more likely to have a stronger administrative culture than younger institutions. Administrative divisions, both in academic affairs and students affairs, which were still formulating policies and mission showed less developed cultural e'lements. This could be attributed to the need for administrators to emphasize developing programs and procedures rather than working on the division's mission or dynamics within the division. 7. All six divisions gave the lowest score on the OCAQ to the element of Cultural Strength. When asked to list the divisional values in the interviews many of the interviewees had difficulty in expressing common divisional

PAGE 193

183 values. This may be attributed to a lacic of discussions among administrators about the divisional mission, as with student affairs at Beta State University, or to the presence of conflict within the division at the time of the study, as with academic affairs at Alpha College and Beta State University. 8. The cultural differences between student affairs administrators and academic affairs administrators were quite noticeable. Teamwork and interpersonal relationships in student affairs were consistently scored higher than in academic affairs, even when there were conflicts within the student affairs division. This could be attributed to the fact that most academic administrators came from the faculty ranks, where they generally worked autonomously. On the other hand, student affairs administrators often came from a background in counseling or student development which placed an emphasis on teamwork and interpersonal relationships. 9. Another difference between the two groups of administrators dealt with their primary customers. Administrators in each of the student affairs divisions listed students as their primary customer, with the institution as their secondary customer. Administrators in each of the academic affairs divisions listed faculty and academic programs as their primary customers. 10. Based on other research, the researcher expected that the value of community would be espoused by student affairs and academic affairs administrators. However, community was not a spoken value by most of the administrators interviewed in this study although qualities of community, such as civility, commitment, and humanness, were mentioned by numerous administrators. Implications for Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Administrators 1. Student affairs professionals could transfer among institutions of higher education and find the cultures of student affairs divisions very

PAGE 194

184 similar. The similarity in the three subcultures could facilitate more professional mobility of student affairs professionals within higher education. 2. The academic affairs administrative culture in the two state institutions had a number of commonalties, even though one institution was still developing its culture. This researcher believes academic administrators could move among most state institutions and find common cultural elements. 3. Academic administrators comfortable functioning in a private liberal arts culture may find it difficult to fit in the culture of a state institution and vice versa. The different cultural characteristics, especially relating to communication, decision making, and managing change, could prohibit an administrator from feeling comfortable in these different types of institutions. 4 Administrators in academic affairs and student affairs are essentially serving two different populations, the faculty and the students. The difference in customer orientation may explain the reason administrators in academic affairs and student affairs divisions sometimes complain that the other division has not been supportive of each other's programs. It is important that administrators from both divisions acknowledge their different missions so they can better understand each other. 5. Understanding cultural elements within organizations can assist administrators to work more effectively with colleagues because they will know the values and normative behavior in their own division. Knowing the norms of an organization can prevent misconceptions and misunderstandings and reduce the number of conflicts. 6. Using the construct of organizational culture to understand the normative behavior and values within divisions in an institution of higher education can assist administrative personnel in working with administrators

PAGE 195

185 from different divisions. Increased understanding could facilitate more collaboration among divisions within an institution. In a time of constricting resources, such collaboration could be economically and programmatically beneficial. 7. The differences between academic affairs and student affairs administrative cultures are significant. The differences in customer orientation, organizational values, and coordinated teamwork leads this researcher to suggest that each division might benefit by having its own vice president or dean to represent the interests and needs of the organization. Implications for Future Research 1. Confidentiality is an important characteristic of qualitative research. Administrators indicated they shared information with this researcher that they had not shared with others in their division. It was paramount that their confidentiality be protected in the reporting of the information. Therefore, sources were not identified to prevent individuals from being inadvertently revealed. Confidentiality needs to be a constant concern of qualitative research. 2. An external person is the most appropriate researcher for qualitative research. Although the methodology for this study could be duplicated for any two divisions within an institution, it is the recommendation of this researcher that an outside person conduct the study. An external researcher can provide administrators an impartial person with whom to discuss the organization's culture. During the pilot study on the researcher's own campus, administrators mentioned being somewhat uncomfortable talking about their division with someone associated with another division on campus. Objectivity and confidentiality would necessitate an external person conduct any such research.

PAGE 196

186 3. Professionals should be cautious in generalizing these results to other institutions in higher education. To determine if the results are transferable to other institutions, it would be helpful to have this study duplicated in other parts of the country using other institutions. More research directed towards the administrative subculture in higher education is also needed to fill a void in the literature. 4. The administrative culture of a community college needs to be examined. Although a community college was not included in this research, it is recommended that such a study be conducted. 5. Organizational culture is dynamic in nature and fluctuates as situations and people change. A week spent on each campus provided valuable information about the divisions' cultural artifacts and group dynamics; however, two or more visits to the campuses may have provided a better picture of the division's culture. More interviews and visits over a longer period of time could provide a more comprehensive view of the organization's culture. 6. The Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire proved to be a valid instrument for assessing cultural elements in organizations as the instrument provided a basis for comparing organizations. The OCAO could be beneficial in future research in higher education to gain information about departments and divisions. 7. Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods can improve studies of organizational culture. The use of a quantitative instrument such as the Organizational Culture Assessment Ouestionnaire and semi-structured interviews proved to be a good combination for examining organizational culture. The instrument's scores provided a baseline which

PAGE 197

187 allowed some comparison of the two divisions. This had not been the situation in most previous cultural studies. However, the (XAQ alone could not have provided the rich information gathered from interviews that described the values, assumptions, and normative behavior related to the five cultural elements. Concluding Remarks Using the theoretical construct of organizational culture to compare two administrative divisions within higher education has provided a more comprehensive picture of the divisions than the traditional organizational management studies. Organizational culture explained the shared assumptions and values that the group has learned through solving its problems and, therefore, taught new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel. Studying an organization's culture provides a more dynamic view of the organization and reflects the day-to-day interactions which occur and explains why they occur. The theory of organizational culture is a valuable research construct to understand organizations. Examining the culture of two important administrative divisions, academic affairs and student affairs, in higher education has expanded the literature on these administrative subcultures. It has also provided valuable insight into why these two administrative divisions operate as they do. The study also gave some glimpses into the dynamics within each of the divisions and between the administrative divisions.

PAGE 198

REFERENCES Allaire, Y., & Firsirotu, M. E. (1984). Theories of organizational culture. Organizational Studies. 193-226. Argyris, C, & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Arnold, D. O. (1970). The sociology of subcultures . Berkeley: The Glendessary Press. Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. In W. G. Tiemey (Ed.), New directions for institutional resources. No. 68 (pp. 61-74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Barley, S. R. (1979). The student life office: A case study . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Cornell, New York. Barley, S. R. (1983). Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly. 28 . 393-413. Becher, T. (1981). Toward a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education. 6 (2). 109-122. Becher, T. (1984). The cultural view. In B. Clark (Ed.), Perspectives in higher education (pp. 165-198). Berkeley: University of California Press. Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The academic profession: National, disciplinarv. and institutional settings (pp. 271-303). Berkeley: The University of California Press. Bergquist, W. H. (1992). The four cultures of the academy: Insig hts and strategies for imp roving leadership in collegiate organizations . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bess, J. L. (1978). Anticipatory socialization of graduate students. Research in Higher Education. 8 289-317. Bess, J. L. (1982). University organization: A matrix analysis of the academic professions . New York: Human Services Press. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology. 57 . 195-203. 188

PAGE 199

189 Billups, F. A. (1991). College and university administrator perceptions of organizational culture: An analysis of metaphors. (Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbuilt University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International. 52 (3). A0814. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic or ganization and leadership . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blau, P. M. (1973). The organization of academic work . New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bolton, C. D., & Kammeyer, K. C. W. (1972). Campus cultures, role orientations, and social types. In K. Feldman (Ed.), College and student: Selected readings in the social psychology of higher education (pp. 377-392). New York: Pergamon Press. Bowen, H. R. (1977). Investment in learning . San Francisco: JosseyBass. Bowen, H. R., & Schuster, J. H. (1986). American professors: A national resource imperiled . New York: Oxford University Press. Cameron, K. S., & Ettington, D. R. (1988). The conceptual foundations of organizational culture. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (vol. 4, pp. 356-396). New York: Agathon. Caudron, S. (1992). Subculture strife hinders productivity. Personnel Journal . December, 60-64. Chaffee, E. E., & Tiemey, W. G. (1988). Collegiate culture and leadership strategies. New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing Company. Clark, B. (1963). Faculty culture. In T. Lunsford (Ed.), The study of gampus guUuresBoulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education. Clark, B. (1970). The distinctive college: Antioch. Reed, and Swarthmore . Chicago: Aldine Publishing. Clark, B. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administr ative Science Quarterly. 17 . 178-184. Clark, B. (1980). Academic culture . Yale Higher Education Research Group/Report No. 42. New Haven, CT: Yale University, Institute for Social and Policy Studies.

PAGE 200

190 Clark, B. (1984a). Perspectives on higher education . Berkeley: University of California Press. Clark, B. (1984b). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective . Berkeley: University of California Press. Clark, B. (1985). Listening to the professoriate. Change. 17 . 36-43. Clark, B. (1987a). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds . Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Clark, B. (1987b). The academic profession: National disciplinary and institutional setting s. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cohen, A. K. (1970). A general theory of subcultures. In D. O. Arnold (Ed.), The sociology of subcultures (pp. 96-108). Berkeley: The Gendessary Press. Cooke, R. A., & Lafferty, J. C. (1987). Or ganizational culture inventory . Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics. Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M (1988). Behavioral norms and expectations: A quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group and Organization Studies. 13 . 245-273. Creswell, J. W., & Bean, J. P. (1981). Research output, socialization, and the Biglan model. Research in Higher Education. 15 (1). 69-91. Cunningham, W. G., & Gresso, D. W. (1993). Cultural leadership: The culture o f excellence in education . Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rights and rituals of corporate life . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1983). Culture: A new look through old lenses. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 19 . 497-505. Dickerson-Gifford, D. (1990). A comparison of values of two subcultures within hi gher education: Academic administrators and student affairs administrators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Kentucky, Lexington. Dill, D. (1982). The management of academic culture: Notes on the management of meaning and social integration. Higher Education. 11 . 303-320. Endeman, J. L. (1993). Visionary superintendents and their districts. In M. Sashkin & H. J. Walberg (Eds.) Educational leadership and school cnltnre (pp. 146-162). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

PAGE 201

191 Ernest, R. C. (1985). Corporate cultures and effective planning: An introduction to the organizational culture grid. Personnel Administrator. 20(3), 49-60. Foote, C, Mayer, H., & Associates (1968). The culture of the university: Governance and education . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Freedman, M. (1979). Academic culture and faculty development . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Frost, P., & Morgan, G. (1983). Symbols and sensemaking: The realization of a framework. In L. R. Pondy et al.. Or ganizational Symbolism (pp. 207-236). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C, & Martin, J. (1985). Or ganizational culture . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C, & Martin, J. (1991). Reframing organizational culture . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gaff, J. G., & Wilson, R. C. (1971). Faculty cultures and interdisciplinary studies. Journal of Higher Education. 42 . 186-201. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures . New York: Basic Books. Giese, R. J. (1995). Assessing the organizational cultures of the California community colleges that have and have not implemented shared governance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of La Verne, La Verne, CA. Glaser, B. S., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishers. Goffigon, R., Wright, J., Lacey, D., & Kuh, G. D. (1986). The small college experience: The generalist's perspective. In G. D. Kuh & A. C. McAleenan (Eds.), Private dreams, shared visions: Student affairs work in small colleges (pp. 95-104). Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Goodenough, W. H. (1971). Culture, language and societv . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishers. Gregory, K. L. (1983). Native-view paradigms: Multiple cultures and culture conflicts in organizations. Administrative Science Ouarterlv. 28 . 259376. Gusfield, J., & Riesman, D. (1968). Faculty culture and academic careers. In K. Yamamoto (Ed.), The college student and his culture: An analysis (pp. 271-291). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

PAGE 202

192 Kirchner, D. M. (1992). Case study: A description and interpretation of organizational culture at Indian Hills Community College. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International. ^(7), A2186. Kuh, G. D., & Hall, J. E. (1993). Using cultural perspectives in student affairs. In G. D. Kuh (Ed.) Cultural perspectives in student affairs work (pp. 120). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kuh, G. D., Shedd, J. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1987). Student affairs and liberal education: Unrecognized (and unappreciated) common law partners. Journal of College Student Personnel. 28 . 252-260. Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988a). The invisible tapestrv: Culture in American colleges and universities . ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988b). Using cultural lens to understand faculty behavior . (Report No. RIE-NOV 88). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No ED 295 543) Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1989). Qualitative methods in higher education research: A team approach to multiple site investigation . (Report No. RIE-May 90). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 313 891) Levinson, R. M. (1989). The faculty and institutional isomophism. Academe. 75 (\). 2-28. Light, D. (1974). The structure of the academic professions. Sociology of Education. 47 (1 V 2-28. Lincoln, Y. S. (Ed.) (1985). Organizational theory and inquirv: The paradigm revolution . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lindquist, J. (1978). Strategies for change . Washington, DC: Council of Independent Colleges. Love, P. G. (1990). An investigation int o the organizational culture nf a student affairs department. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Love, P. G., Kuh, G. D., MacKay, K. A., & Hardy, C. M. (1993). Side by sideFaculty and student affairs cultures. In G. D. Kuh (Ed.), Cultural perspectives in student affairs work (pp. 37-58). Lanham, MD: American College Personnel Association.

PAGE 203

193 Lundberg, C. C. (1985). On the feasibility of cultural intervention in organizations. In J. P. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R., Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 169-186). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Malinowski, B. (1944). A scientific theory of culture and other essays. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives . New York: Oxford University Press. Martin, J., & Siehl, C. (1983). Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis. Or ganizational Dynamics. 12 . 52-66. Martin, W. B. (1985). Corporate culture-College culture. In R. J. Fecher (Ed.), A pplying corporate management strategies: New directions for hig her education ( No. 50, pp. 75-82). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Masland, A. T. (1985). Organizational culture in the study of higher education. The Review of Higher Education. 8 . 157-168. McAleenan, A. C, & Kuh, G. D. (1986). The context for student affairs work in small colleges. In G. D. Kuh & A. C. McAleenan (Eds.), Private dreams, shared visions: Student affairs work in small colleges (pp. 95-104). Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case studv research in education: A qualitative approach . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views. Journal of Management Studies. 24 . 623-625. Morrill, P. H., & Spees, E. R. (1982). The academic profe.ssion: Teaching ill higher education . New York: Human Sciences Press. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. 1987. A perspective on stud ent affairs . Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Oblander, D. A. (1990). Socialization of new student affairs professionals. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International. 5U 10V A3341. Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Ouarterlv. 25 . 129-141. Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theorv Z . Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. Ouchi, W. G. & Wilkins, A. L. (1985). Organizational culture. Annual Review of Sociology. 1 1 . 457-483.

PAGE 204

194 Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies . Glencoe, XL: The Free Press. Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies . New York: Harper and Row. Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic culture and climate. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures. New directions for institutional research (No. 68., pp. 3-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pettigrew, A. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly. 24 . 570-581. Piatt, C. (1988). The winds of change: Case studies of college culture and decision making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Los Angeles. Dissertation Abstracts International. 50 (6). A 1577. (University Microfilms No. UMN 8919456) Plante, P. R. (1990). An administrator will yearn for the classroom: Myth or reality? Educational Record. 71 (11. 27-30. Reisman, D., Gusfield, J., & Gamerson Z. F. (1970). Academic values and mass education: The early years of Oakland and Monteith . New York: Doubleday. Rosen, M. (1991) Scholars, travelers, thieves: On concept of organizational culture. In J. P. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R., Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 271-284). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Ruscio, K. P. (1987). Many sectors, many professions. In B. Clark (Ed.), The acad emic profession (pp. 331-368). Berkeley: University of California Press. Sackmann, S. A. (1991). Uncovering culture in organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 27. 295-317. Sackmann, S. A. (1992). Culture and subcultures: An analysis of organizational knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly . 37. 140 161 Sandeen, A. (1985). The legacy of values education in college student personnel work. In J. Dalton (Ed.), Promoting values development in college students (pp. 1-16), Monograph Series v. 4. Washington, DC: NASPA. Sashkin, M. (1990). Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire . Unpublished instrument. Washington, D. C: Author. Sashkin, M., Rosenbach, W.E., & Mueller, R. (1994). Leadership, culture and performance: An explor ation of relationships . Unpublished manuscript. The George Washington University.

PAGE 205

195 Sashkin, M., & Sashkin, M. G. (1993). Principals and their school cultures: Understandings from quantitative and qualitative research. In M. Sashkin & H. J. Walberg (Eds.) Educational leadership and school culture pp. 100-123. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing. Schien, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Schien, E. H. (1991) What is culture? In P. J. Frost, L. M. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin, (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 243-253). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Schien, E. H. (1992). Or ganizational culture and leadership . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Scott, R. A. (1978). Lords, squires, and yeomen: Collegiate middle managers and their organizations . ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1984). Leadership as cultural expression. In T. J. Sergiovanni & J. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture (pp. 105-113). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Skrtic, T. M. (1985). Doing naturalistic research into educational organizations. In Y.S. Lincoln (Ed.), Organizational theory and inquiry: The paradigm revolution (pp. 185-220). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Smircich, L. (1983). Organizations as shared meanings. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. C. Dandridge, (Eds.), Or ganizational symbolism (pp. 55-65). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press. Stamatakos, L. C, & Rogers, R. R. (1984). Student affairs: A profession in need of a philosophy. Journal of College Student Personnel . 25. 400-411. Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education. Journal of Higher Education. 59 . 2-21. Tierney, W. G. (1990). Assessing academic climates and cultures. New directions for instit utional research. 68 . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tierney, W.G. & Rhoads, R.A. (1993). Enhancing promotion, tenure, and bgyond: Faculty so cialization as a cultural process . ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy of Management Review. 9 653-669. Van Maanen, J. (1979). The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administr ative Science Ouarterlv 74 539-550.

PAGE 206

196 Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior . 6, 287-365. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1985). Cultural organization: Fragments of a theory. In P. J. Frost (Ed.), Organizational culture (pp. 31-53). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Whitt, E. J. (1991). Artful science: A primer on qualitative research methods. Journal of College Student Development. 32 . 405-414. Wilkins, A. L. (1983). The culture audit: A tool for understanding organizations. Or ganizational Dynamics. 12 . 24-38. Winston, R. B., & Saunders, S. A. (1991). Ethical practice in student affairs. In T. K. Miller & R. B. Wiston (Eds.), Administration and leadership in student affairs: Actualizing student development in higher education (pp. 309346). Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development. Yerkes, D., Cuellar, M. F., & Cuellar, A. (1992). Towards an understanding of organizational culture in schools of education: Implications for leadership . (Report No. RIE JAN 93). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 348 768) Young, R. B. (1993). The essential values of the profession. In R. B. Young (Ed.), Identifying and implementing the essential values of the profession. New dir ections for student services. No. 61 (pp. 5-10). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Young, R. B., & Elkrink, V. L. (1991). Essential values of student affairs work. Journal of College Student Development. 32 rn. 47-55.

PAGE 207

APPENDIX A INSTRUCTIONS FOR JURY TO VALIDATE THE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE August 14, 1995 Dear Colleague: We realize you are extremely busy, however, we hope you will serve on a jury of professionals to determine the validity of a questionnaire. Irene Stevens is working on completing her dissertation and plans to use the Organizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire to assess administrative culture within student affairs and academic affairs divisions. She will be using this instrument and then interviewing representatives from each division to determine the organizational culture within each division. The Organizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire has been used in public service organizations, corporations, and public schools, but it has not been used in four year institutions in higher education. Although the questionnaire, in modified forms, has been used in more than six studies, there are no data on the validity of the questionnaire. We are requesting that you serve on a select jury of administrators and researchers to determine the validity of the instrument. Please take a few minutes and examine the enclosed questionnaire to determine whether it measures what it was designed to measure. Dr. Marshall Sashkin, the questionnaire's author, designed it to measure five elements of organizational culture: Managing Change, Achieving Goals, Coordinated Teamwork, Customer Orientation, and Cultural Strength. To make it easier for you to examine the connection between the questions and the five categories we have placed the questions under the category to which they relate. We have also included a copy of the original OCAO booklet that Dr. Sashkin developed to explain the concepts of the questionnaire. Please take a few minutes to review the questionnaire and provide us with feedback about the validity of the questions in each category. We have included a self-addressed envelop in which to mail your reply. Please contact Art Sandeen, dissertation co-chair, or Irene Stevens if you have any questions. We would be very grateful if you could assist us with this evaluation of the questionnaire within the next two weeks. Thank you for any assistance you can give us. Sincerely, Art Sandeen Irene Stevens Vice President, Student Affairs Doctoral Student 197

PAGE 208

198 APPENDIX B JURY EVALUATION FORM Please complete this form after reading the revised survey for this administrator study and Dr. Sashkin's original booklet explaining the OCAQ . Rate each functional area in terms of how well the statements accurately reflect the category. This will assist us in determining the validity of the questionnaire. Completely Mostly Partly Slightly Not True True True True True Managing Change 5 4 3 2 Achieving Goals 5 4 3 2 Coordinated Teamwork 5 4 3 2 Customer Orientation 5 4 3 2 Cultural Strength 5 4 3 2 Please make any comments relevant to the validity of this questionnaire. Signature Date Title/Position Institution Please return this Jury Evaluation Form to Irene Stevens in the enclosed selfaddressed stamped envelop by August 31, 1995. Thank you for your consideration of this project.

PAGE 209

APPENDIX C ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURAL ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 199

PAGE 210

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS This questionnaire measures the ways administrators in divisions within the institution generally think and act. The questions ask you to describe, as best you can, how administrators typically behave and the sorts of things they generally believe about the division and how it operates. In giving your answers, the term "organization" is used to mean the largest unit or division within the institution that you relate to directly in your normal work activities. Of course, it is impossible for anyone to know exactly what administrative colleagues think and believe about a wide range of issues; the aim here is to identify a rough, general consensus of ideas and beliefs that people in your organization share and that affect the way they behave. Please be as accurate as possible in describing the behaviors and attitudes of yourself and other members of the organization. There are no right or wrong answers. Your answers should indicate what actually happens as you and others view it, not what you believe should happen or how you think people should see things. Demographic Information: Type of Institution: Private Public Division in which you work: Academic Affairs Student Affairs Position within division: vice president dean department chair/director mid-level administrator other College or department in which you work: Number of administrative levels removed from the vice president/dean of the division: none two one three Number of years with this institution: years Number of years as a full-time professional in higher education: years Gender: female male Race: Asian/Pacific Islander Black Other Hispanic/Latino Native American White Use the foUowing response key for questions 1-30. Circle the number that represents what you believe is the general thought or behavior within your division. COMPLETELY TRUE MOSTLY TRUE PARTLY TRUE SLIGHTLY TRUE NOT TRUE This statement definitely applies to the way people think and act in my organization most or all of the time. This statement applies to the way people think and act in my organization much of the time. This statement applies occasionally to the way people in my organization think and act. This statement seldom applies to the way people in my organization think and act. This statement does not apply at all to the way people in my organization think and act. 200

PAGE 211

1. Not True 1 2. Sliehtlv True 1 3. PartlvTnip 1 4. Mostly True 1 5. Completely Tru( 1. This organization clearly demonstrates that it can adapt to changing conditions as needed. 5 4 3 2 1 2. In this organization people have clearly defined goals. 5 4 3 2 1 3. People's roles and tasks are so complicated that most administrators give up trying to coordinate with one another and just accept the inevitable ambiguity. 5 4 3 2 1 4. This organization provides personal attention to all of its students. J 4 3 2 1 5. People in this organization believe in accepting one another as they are rather than trying to change one another. 5 4 3 2 1 6. People in this organization agree that there's really nothing we can do about regulation or conditions imposed on us from outside (e.g., TITLE 5, ADA, Regents, Legislature, etc). 5 4 3 2 1 7. In this organization people try to do their best, with little pressure to strive for specific goals. 5 4 3 Z 1 8. People in this organization believe in letting everyone do his or her "own thing". 5 4 3 2 1 9. This organization is flexible and quick to respond to the needs and concerns of students, faculty, staff, or other outside stakeholders and concerned parties. 5 A 1 J 2 1 10 This organization has developed an enduring pattern of shared values, beliefs, and norms of behavior. 5 4 3 2 1 11 When changes are necessary, everyone in this organization has a clear idea of what sorts of activities are and are not acceptable. 5 4 3 2 1 12 In this organization individual action is channeled into achieving the goals of the total organization rather than only the goals of individuals. 5 4 3 2 1 13. In this organization administrators believe in making sure that everything happens according to the plans made at higher levels (President, Vice-President/Dean). 5 A Q J 2 1 14. This organization concentrates on new services and course offerings for which student demand can be developed. 5 4 3 2 1 15. People in this organization rely on one another to understand what is really happening and why. 5 4 3 2 1 16. In this organization the pressure to maintain the status quo is so great that if major changes were required for the organization to survive, it might not. 5 4 3 2 1 17. People in this organization deal effectively with problems that involve defining and attaining goals. 5 4 3 2 1 1 18. People in this organization clearly understand their job assignments and how these relate to the job assignments of others in the organization with whom they work. 5 4 3 2 1 19. This organization develops new courses and programs that are natural extensions of the existing educational courses and programs. 5 4 3 2 1 20. In this organization people are expected to support their work related views and beliefs with concrete facts. 5 4 3 2 1 201

PAGE 212

IT I 1. Not Tru e I 2. Slightly T rue 3. Partly True Mostly Tr ue I 5. Completely True 21. In this organization people believe they can influence, control, or work positively with important factors and forces in our environment. 22. Most people in this organization have their own work goals that arenot compatible with other's goals. 23. People in this organization believe in working together collaboratively, preferring cooperation over competition. 24. Before experimenting with new courses or services we make sure that these are what our students, faculty, outside stakeholders, and other concerned parties need and want. 25. It is accepted in this organization that people usually have their own ways of seeing and making sense of situations. 26 In this organization we believe in making our outside stakeholders and other concerned parties into valued allies. 27. Taking action to attain new goals is valued in this organization more than maintaining the status quo. 28. Making sure that admmistrators 11 levels coordinate tasks effectively is seen as the responsibility of all the administrators involved, not just the responsibility of the top leaders. 29. People in this organization believe that listening to what students have to say is critical if we are to reach our goals. 30 In this organization everyone believes in a set of shared basic values about how people should, /^ther) to solve common problems and reach shared objectives. THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND RETURNING IT BY OCTOBER 11, 1995. 202

PAGE 213

APPENDIX D COVER LETTER FOR SURVEY DIRECTED TO STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS Irene Stevens 2289 N.W. 21 Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32605 September 22, 1995 Dear Student Affairs Administrator: Dr. — , Vice President for Student Affairs, has been gracious enough to grant me permission to survey the administrative staff in Student Affairs at Gamma University. I am conducting research on organizational culture at the administrative level and I am assessing the organizational culture in student affairs divisions within different types of institutions. I have enclosed a short thirty item survey entitled Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire which I am asking you to complete. It should take less than ten minutes. As you complete the questionnaire, please do so with your colleagues in the Division of Student Affairs in mind. You can return the questionnaire in the stamped self-addressed envelope which is included in this mailing. Later this semester I will be coming to Gamma University to interview various administrators in the division. I may be calling you to arrange an interview at that time. Any information you provide in the questionnaire or interview will be confidential and will not be shared with anyone in a manner that will identify the person that provided me the information. I truly appreciate any assistance you can give me in this dissertation research. I would appreciate you returning the questionnaire by October 11, 1995. Sincerely, Irene Stevens 203

PAGE 214

APPENDIX E COVER LETTER FOR SURVEY DIRECTED TO ACADEMIC AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS Irene Stevens 2289 N.W. 21 Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32605 September 22, 1995 Dear Academic Affairs Administrator: Dr. — , Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, has been gracious enough to grant me permission to survey the administrative staff in Academic Affairs at Gamma University. I am conducting research on organizational culture at the administrative level and I am assessing the organizational culture in academic affairs divisions within different types of institutions. I have enclosed a short thirty item survey entitled Or ganizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire which I am asking you to complete. It should take less than ten minutes. As you complete the questionnaire, please do so with your colleagues in the Division of Academic Affairs in mind. You can return the questionnaire in the stamped self-addressed envelope which is included in this mailing. Later this semester I will be coming to Gamma University to interview various administrators in the division. I may be calling you to arrange an interview at that time. Any information you provide in the questionnaire or interview will be confidential and will not be shared with anyone in a manner that will identify the person that provided me the information. I truly appreciate any assistance you can give me in this dissertation research. I would appreciate you returning the questionnaire by October 11, 1995. Sincerely, Irene Stevens 204

PAGE 215

APPENDIX F LETTER TO ADMINISTRATORS CONFIRMING INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS Irene Stevens 2289 N.W. 21 Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32605 November 28, 1995 Dr. title Institution Street City, State Zip Dear Dr.: As you know, I am conducting research on organizational culture at the administrative level within academic affairs divisions and student affairs divisions in higher education. I will be visiting Beta State University during the week of December 4-8, 1995. I am grateful that you have agreed to an interview with me about the organizational culture in the academic affairs division at Beta State University. I will meet with you in your office at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, December 5th. The interview should take approximately an hour. The interview will explore normative behavior, values, and traditions in the division. I want to assure you that anything you tell me will be held in confidence and only reported in a manner that will insure your anonymity. Thank you for your assistance in this research project. I look forward to meeting with you on December 5th. Sincerely, Irene Stevens 205

PAGE 216

APPENDIX G LETTER TO ADMINISTRATORS REQUESTING PARTICIPATION IN A GROUP INTERVIEW Irene Stevens 2289 N.W. 21 Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32605 Phone: (904) 392-1278 FAX: (904) 392-5566 November 2, 1995 Dr. Department Institution Street City, State, Zip Dear Dr. : I am conducting research on organizational culture at the administrative level within academic affairs divisions and student affairs divisions in higher education. Dr. , the Dean of Faculty, has given me permission to use Alpha College in this study. I will be visiting Alpha College during the week of November 13 through November 17 for more in-depth exploration of the topic by interviewing various members of both divisions. I would appreciate it if you would assist me by participating in a group discussion with three to four other academic affairs administrators who, like yourself, are relatively new to Alpha College. The purpose of the group discussion is to explore your perceptions of the normative behaviors, values, and traditions at Alpha in academic affairs. The discussion will take place on Friday morning, November 17th, from 8:30-10:30 a.m. in the Carnegie Conference Room. I want to assure you that anything you tell me will be held in confidence and only reported in a manner that will insure your anonymity. I hope you have the time and inclination to participate in this project. Thank you for your considering my request to be part of this research. I look forward to possibly working with you on this project. Sincerely, Irene Stevens 206

PAGE 217

207 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Irene E. Stevens graduated from Boise State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Education in December, 1973. Following graduation she taught physical education and coached girls' athletics in a public school in Idaho before attending The College of Idaho to obtain a master's degree in guidance and counseling in 1977. After completing the master's degree Irene remained employed at The College of Idaho in the Department of Student Affairs. She served in the roles of Assistant Dean for Residence Life and Dean of Student Affairs. In 1982, Irene gained employment with the Department of Residence Life at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio. She served in three administrative positions within the department before leaving in 1988. Since 1988, Irene has been employed as an Assistant Dean for Student Services at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. She has been responsible for student judicial affairs, leadership development, and alcohol and drug education. Throughout her tenure at Florida she has been working on a doctorate degree in Educational Leadership within the College of Education. ' • i

PAGE 218

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. es Wattenbarger, Chair 7 istinguished Service Professor of Educational Leadership I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. C. Arthur Sandeen, Cochair Professor of Educational Leadership I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Associate Professor of Counselor Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree oj/^ocXax /oj Philosophy. lavid Hoifeym *rofessor of Educational Leadership This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. December, 1997 Dean, Graduate Schoo