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.