Models of Organizational Values in the Administration of University Student Services
description
Transcript of Models of Organizational Values in the Administration of University Student Services
Models of Organizational Values in the Administration of University Student ServicesRobin Alison Mueller, PhD
Benedictine values, liberal arts education play important roles in health care, student successApril 24, 2014 - insurancenewsnet.com
Sidwell Friends School may have values other than test scoresMay 15, 2014 – The Washington Post
Graduates charged to protect values, freedom at Commencement 2014May 10, 2014 – Liberty University News
Teachers instrumental in producing proper valuesMay 16, 2014 – The Rakyat Post
Generating dialogue on values in school classroomsMay 12, 2014 – The Hindu
Uttar Pradesh Technical University to train faculty in values & ethicsMay 19, 2014 – The Times of India
'Values Tree' bearing fruit for Eardisley schoolchildrenMay 13, 2014 – Ledbury Reporter
Seymour School Budget A Reflection Of Community Values?May 16, 2014 – Valley Independent Sentinel
Montessori stands for added valueMay 5, 2014 – East African Business Week
How to Create a Culture That Values Both Academic and Athletic HeroesApril 24, 2014 – US News & World Report
Instilling positive values in children is necessaryMay 13, 2014 – The New Indian Express
What’s wrong with teaching strong moral values?May 17, 2014 – Lethbridge Hearlad
Challenge #1 – Narrowing purpose
• Immense field of studyTheory Practice
Student Services
University Education
Administration
Organizations
Values
Backstory
•Organizational values strategic planning
•Universities “mission, vision, and values”Cornerstone to planning effort
“An integral piece of any strategic planning process is early clarification of the mission, purpose, and values of the organization” (Cook, 2010, p. 28)
Challenge #2 – Rationale / Justification•Values in educational administration: Them's fighting words!
“…the quite widespread usage of the term ‘values’ provides a skewed perception of its conceptual prominence in administrative inquiry. Indeed, the flippant use of ‘values’ and its cognates in the absence of any attempt to clarify or describe what is meant by these terms incorrectly assumes that there are widely shared understandings of such things” (Richmon, 2004, p. 340)
Common response #1: This is easy / this has been done
•Organizational values as visible and well-understood
• In any school’s culture, we can “…distinguish core values, values near the core, and values distant from the core” (Johansson & Bredeson, 1999, p. 54)
Common response #2: Choosing the “right” values
•Research involving organizational values (Richmon, 2004)
Common response #3: There’s no such thing
http://www.gapingvoid.com/0801corevalues.jpg
“Trying to explain values to people is like trying to explain water to
fish.” (Edwards, 2010, p.1)
Why? • If you “back up” to the general concept of organizational values…We don’t know the rules
Why?
•We don’t know the rulesBut we continue to invest
•Response is lukewarm at best, dangerous at worst
Why? •Understanding of the organizational values phenomenon is not centrally featured in higher education research and literature
“Organizational values” is ill defined
NOTHING about how people experience organizational values
Push-back
•Pointed•Visceral
Conceptual Framework
• Selznick (1957) Grounding
“organizations”• Situating “organizational values”
• Sorting literature and research
Methodology
•Critical realism
Method• Purpose – uncover the descriptive, non-negotiable reality of the organizational values concept in university administration
• Three-phase study to investigate how:1. Organizational values are conceptualized2. Organizational values activity is expressed3. People experience organizational values in
context of their work
Analytical Framework•Model development (Newton, Burgess, & Burns, 2010)
“Too much.”
Phase One
•Retroduction – discovering essential parts• Goal Accurately map how people are talking about the organizational values concept
•Cluster analysis
Phase One• Literature review: education, higher education, administration, contemporary axiology, corporate/organizational studies
•Cluster analysis Exploratory Quantitative (non-statistical) data reduction Classification based on natural relationships Determining conceptual “skeleton”
•77 variables within definitions of “organizational values”, 37 authors•Preliminary clustering removed variables found in less than 15% of cases•32 variables, 37 authors in final analysis•6 clusters, 3 predominant
Phase One Results
Variable Frequencyof Occurrence
Belief 48.6%Directive; guide; driver 48.6%Cognitive; idea or thought; conceptual 40.5%Personal; internalized; subjective (in terms of judgment) 40.5%Intrinsically important; right; good 32.4%Moral; ethical 32.4%Motivating force 29.7%End; end state 29.7%Affective; emotive 27.0%Judgment; evaluation; choice 27.0%Commitment 24.3%Goods that enhance life; good thing(s); ideal standard(s) 21.6%Normative 21.6%Desire 21.6%Determinant; causal 21.6%Knowledge 21.6%Variable; component; structural feature 21.6%Objective (in terms of judgment) 18.9%Emotion; feeling 18.9%Standard 18.9%Objective end; goal; aim 18.9%“Oughtness” 18.9%Real 18.9%Transcendental; transrational 18.9%Performance measure 16.2%Fact; factual 16.2%Property; characteristic; trait 16.2%Behaviour; act(s); mode of conduct 16.2%Principle 16.2%Individual construct 16.2%Criterion 16.2%Contextual; relate to surrounding condition 16.2%
• Variables indicating that org values are individually experienced and expressed affective, behavioural, emotion, and subjective
• Variables suggesting that “organizational values” is linked to human activity; progression of action judgement, guide, and motivating force
• “Subjective”
Cluster One
• Variables characterizing “organizational values” as an end point, purpose, aspiration, or aim end, transcendental, and good thing
• Variables suggesting objective assessment standard, normative, and criterion
• Removed from daily activity of individual people Applied in reference to the achievement of general desired ends
• “Objective”
Cluster Two
• Variables such as fact and real map onto the same cluster as principle and moral
• A middle-ground? Conceptualization of values includes both subjective and objective elements
• Indicate subjective/objective mutual influence
• “Hybrid”
Cluster Three
General model of organizational values
Phase Two•Textual analysis of strategic planning texts from university administration (student services)Language represents phenomena
How language was used to represent the activity associated with the organizational values concept policy creation Strategic planning
•Publicly accessible strategic planning documents Institutions across CanadaExplicit reference to organizational values
•Eight documents, twenty pages of text, roughly 100 pages of textual analysis notes
Phase Two Data
Fairclough, 2001; Stillar, 1998
Phase Two Data Analysis
Results • Initial assumption
Textual documents as representations of the activity of policy creation about organizational values
Textual documents as artefacts of policy creation
Language System:Strategic Planning
Activity Represented:Policy Creation
Documents:
Artefacts of Policy
Creation
•Also discoveredRepresentations of the activity/activities associated with organizational values
Textual documents as artefacts of organizational values
ResultsLanguage System:
Strategic Planning
Activity Represented:Organizational
Values
Documents:Artefacts of
Organizational Values
• “Organizational values” interpreted as a variable within strategic planning Nature of the variable differs
• Differing definitions/conceptions
• “Distance” in strategic planning documents Future tense; dissociated from action One time effort; declarative tone No avenue for dialogue
Results
• Emphasis on accountability within the activity of policy creation Makes organizational values work visible and concrete
• Specific action associated with the organizational values principle “working together” Interpersonal working relationships Collaboration, relationship building, communication Smaller, localized, professional working groups
Results
A Specific Model of Organizational Values
Phase Three
•Episodic narrative interview
Unique combination of episodic interviewing (Flick, 2000) and narrative research (Chase, 2005)
Designed to elicit information about personal stories pertaining to a specific, pre-narrowed experience
Phase Three Data
• Student services professionals from Canadian universities Delimitations
• 11 interviews, 40 to 80 minutes in length
•Collocation analysis (Mello, 2002)
Phase Three Data Analysis
Data
1. Textual Operation 2. Transactional Operation
3. Socio-cultural Operation
4. Educative Operation
Phase Three Results• Huge differences in definition; difficulty talking about the concept
Organizational beliefs Group expectations What is important to the institution Collective standards Core organizational principles Guides to individual behaviour within organizations The purpose of the organization Organizational attitudes Day to day work/behaviour Ideals Shared goals Organizational commitments Shared organizational vision and philosophy
Phase Three Results•Organizational values “rhetoric” misaligned from decision making, policy, and workplace activity“…you don’t see enough of these words… demonstrated. They are thrown around carelessly and easily, but you don’t seem to see anybody walking the talk. There’s a lot of talk, you know, but is it actually carried out?” (Interview #2, p. 1).
Phase Three Results•Confusion about boundaries between personal, professional, and organizational values“…we talk about our institutional values and what we value [personally], and it’s… loaded… because then you start thinking about… do you have to live that as a shared experience? Do you have to value what everybody else values?” (Interview #4, p. 2).
Phase Three Results•Forced enactment of processes embedded within organizational values“It kind of seems like at our institution that’s just what we do. We rip the band-aid off really quick and then deal with it kicking and screaming later” (Interview #8, p. 8).
Phase Three Results•Division between leaders and staff
The “decisions… being made at a higher level [are] incongruent with the actual nature of the reality of the situation” (Interview #6, p. 3).
An Authentic Model of Organizational Values
Models of organizational values
Verbs
Verbs
VerbsHybridNoun
s
Nouns
Hybrid
Hybrid
Verbs
Nouns
Significance – language
PersonalConceptio
n
PersonalActual
Organizational
Conception
Organizational
Actual
Alig
nmen
t?
Belief about purpose
Directive for working together
Template for more concise language
Significance – assumptions
•We know more about a phenomenon that was formerly unknown but invested inAssumptions revised; investment re-situated
Significance – practice
•Models can be used in the application of concise language and evaluation of application
•More meaningful alignment
Ideas for Application• Importance of a common values language
• Removing organizational values articulation from the purview of strategic planning Challenging current assumptions about how that works
• Re-positioning organizational values among small working groups
• Revised role for university leaders ensuring language consistency, staff check-in, modeling alignment
Leader:Strategic Planning
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Dist
ribut
es &
Di
ssem
inat
es
Organizational Values
Statements
Contribute individual understandings
Contribute individual understandings
Inform work and decisions Inform
work
and d
ecisi
ons
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Leader:Translator
Ensur
es Lan
guag
e
Consis
tency
Ensures Language
Consistency
Organizational Values
StatementsM
odel
s Alig
nmen
t
Next steps…
References• Chase, S. E. (2005). Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches,
voices. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.)(pp. 651–679). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Cook, L. P. (2010). Values drive the plan. New Directions for Student Services, 132, 27-38. doi: 10.1002/ss.373
• Edwards, R. (2010). The essentials of formal axiology. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
• Fairclough, N. (2001). The discourse of New Labour: Critical discourse analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data (pp. 229-266). London: Sage.
• Flick, U. (2000). Episodic interviewing. In M. W. Bauer, & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 75-92). London: Sage.
References • Johansson. O., & Bredeson, P. V. (1999). Value orchestration by the policy community
for the learning community: Reality or myth. In P. T. Begley (Ed.), Values and educational leadership (pp. 51-72). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Mello, R. A. (2002). Collocation analysis: A method for conceptualizing and understanding narrative data. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 231-243. Doi: 10.1177/146879410200200206
• Newton, P., Burgess, D., & Burns, D. P. (2010). Models in educational administration: Revisiting Willower’s ‘theoretically oriented’ critique. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 38(5), 578–590. doi: 10.1177/1741143210373740
• Richomon, M. J. (2004). Values in educational administration: Them’s fighting words! International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 7(4), 339-356. doi: 10.1080/1360312042000224686
• Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. New York: Harper & Row
• Stillar, G. F. (1998). Analyzing everyday texts: Discourse, rhetoric, and social perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.