Examining Multiple Organizational Identity Alignment: A Comparison of
University and College of Business Mission Statements
Robert RobinsonJeremy C. Short
Hans HansenG. Tyge Payne
Timothy B. Palmer
Background in Organizational Identity
Previous research has often examined universities or their colleges – but rarely both Colleges of business have been examined (e.g.,
Labianca, Fairbank, Andrevski, & Parzen 2009) specifically regarding their identity
Gioia & Thomas 1996 examined top management teams and their understanding of organizational identity at universities
Albert & Whetten (1985) used a research university as the specific example of an organization with multiple identities
Mission Statements and Identity
Mission statements allow organizations to define their purpose, and in so doing, their identity (Pearce 1982; Wheelen & Hunger 2004).
An organization can outline the important elements of its identity by stating goals, values, services, products, and resources in one document.
Little research has examined multiple missions in the same organization
Strategies for Managing Multiple Identities
Pratt & Foreman (2000) outlined four strategies regarding multiple identities within organizations, but only two involved maintaining them: compartmentalization and aggregation Compartmentalization essentially involves
maintaining completely separate identities Aggregation attempts to reconcile identities while still
preserving their distinctions Universities and their colleges would be
expected to aggregate
AACSB Accreditation Business schools are required to align their
missions with their parent universities: The mission statement is appropriate to higher
education for management and consonant with the mission of any institution of which the school is a part. The school periodically reviews and revises the mission statement as appropriate. The review process involves appropriate stakeholders. – from AACSB Standard 1
Why Aggregation, Not Integration
Albert & Whetten (1985) suggested that some organizations use their divisions to respond to different needs
The college of business would respond to stakeholders interested in new graduates with certain skills such as marketing, finance, accounting, management
Instead of trying to respond to those needs in the form of the university, the college of business would form or more specific strategy and identity
What Happens When Differences Collide?
Identity misalignment can lead to conflict over resources (Pratt & Foreman 2000) Example:
a business school seeking to develop a top tier MBA program at a small university could draw resources away from other programs
Research Questions
Do universities and their colleges of business exhibit different elements of identity?
When they do, does the conflict adversely affect performance?
Sample
318 paired missions from AACSB accredited colleges of business and their universities
Measure of Identity
Pearce & David (1987) developed a typology of eight key elements to include in missions:
(1) specification of target customers and markets (2) identification of principal products or services(3) identification of the use of technology(4) expression of commitment to growth, survival, and profitability (5) specification of key elements of the organizational philosophy(6) identification of the organizational self-concept(7) identification of the organization’s desired public image(8) identification of geographic domain.
Table 1 – Coding Definitions for Each Element
Mission Element Coding DefinitionThe specification of target customers and markets
Who are the school’s customers? (e.g., graduate students, undergraduate students, students defined by religious orientation, or working professionals)
The identification of principal products/services
What are the school’s primary products or services? (e.g., broad-based definitions of educating, teaching, or focused definitions such as online and executive programs)
The identification of core technologies
Is the use of technology in program delivery specified? (e.g., lecture, distance learning, or wireless. This component does not address the content of curricula but the delivery of programs)
The expression of commitment to survival, growth, and profitability
Is the school committed to performance objectives? (e.g., statements that express specific growth, ranking, or enrollment goals or more general goals about continuous improvement)
Table 1 (Continued)
Mission Element Coding DefinitionThe specification of key elements in the school’s philosophy
What are the basic beliefs, values, and priorities? (e.g., statements that express philosophical ideals, and the importance of training for social responsibility)
The identification of the school’s self-concept
What is the organization’s distinctive competence or competitive advantage? (e.g., specific mention of strengths, keys to success, or unique quality)
The identification of the school’s desired public image
Is the school responsive to social, community, and environmental concerns? (e.g, express concern or outreach towards to the greater community, state, region, or ethical duties to the community at large including “partnerships” and training)
The specification of geographic domain
Where does the school compete? (e.g., statements that define a geographic scope such as a local community, city, state, or region)
Examples from Missions
Mission Element Coding DefinitionThe specification of key elements in the school’s philosophy
“It chooses young men and women with the highest qualities of intellect, character, and the promise of future achievement” (Washington and Lee University)
The identification of principal products/services
“Hofstra University's faculty is committed to excellence in teaching, scholarly research and service.” (Hofstra University)
The identification of the school’s desired public image
“To develop technically sophisticated business leaders who are prepared to guide their organizations in the integration of technology” (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)
The expression of commitment to survival, growth, and profitability
“Research is at the heart of the scholastic life of our school and is essential to the professional growth and development of our faculty” (Boston University)
DICTION 5.0 – Content Analysis
Moss, Short, Payne, & Lumpkin (2010) adapted dictionaries for each of the eight elements
They augmented prior work by Morris (1994) to develop word lists more specific to social organizations (such as schools)
Measures of Performance
Kaplan and Norton (1992) developed the balanced scorecard approach to evaluating businesses on more than the bottom line
Gumbus (2005) adapted this approach to evaluate schools Endowment per Faculty Member US News & World Report Undergraduate Ranking
for Universities and for Business Schools
Results – Table 3 Analysis of Mission ComponentsMission Component
#Universities Articulating Mission Component
%UniversitiesArticulating Mission Component
#COB’s Articulating Mission Component
% COB’s Articulating Mission Component
# Both Articulating Mission Component
% Both Articulating Mission Component
Customer 280 88.05% 259 81.45% 233 73.27%Product
303 95.28% 305 95.91% 294 92.45%Survival 199 62.58% 180 56.60% 120 37.74%Technology 76 23.90% 80 25.16% 25 7.86%School Philosophy 267 83.96% 254 79.87% 217 68.24%Self Concept 249 78.30% 275 86.48% 220 69.18%Public Image 281 88.36% 255 80.19% 230 72.33%Geography 280 88.05% 250 78.62% 232 72.96%
Table 4 – Differences in Mission ContentMission Component
#Universities Articulating Mission Component
#COB’s Articulating Mission Component
Average Diff. Between – Raw Scores
T-Test of Difference in Raw Scores
Average Diff. Between – Avg. Words
T-Test of Average Diff. in Avg. Words
Customer 280 259 4.78 17.79* 0.02 20.91*Product
303 305 11.35 15.86* 0.04 18.80*Survival 199 180 1.78 12.58* 0.01 11.85*Technology 76 80 0.68 9.15* 0.00 8.60*School Philosophy 267 254 3.38 15.81* 0.02 4.21*Self Concept 249 275 3.39 15.30* 0.02 20.45*Public Image 281 255 4.11 18.94* 0.02 20.37*Geography 280 250 4.76 14.95* 0.02 18.06*
*P<.01
Table 5: Regression Models Relating Mission Components to PerformanceMission Component Endowment
Std. CoefficientsUniversity RankStd. Coefficients
COB Rank Std. Coefficients
Customer -0.01 0.00 0.03Product -.19* -0.03 -.13**Survival -0.04 -0.00 0.11Technology 0.05 -0.11 .21*School Philosophy .15** 0.05 .12**Self Concept -0.02 -0.02 0.04Public Image 0.02 0.11 -0.06Geography -0.01 -0.11 -0.04R2 0.05 0.04 0.09Model F 2.23** 1.48*** 3.85*
* P < .01, ** P<.05, *** Not Significant
Table 6 Comparisons of Performance:Endowment per Faculty MemberMission Component
Both Neither University Only
Business School Only
Customers $497,610 $1,102,200 $476,655 $415,747
Products $446,847 $2,790,000 $1,971,800 $189,994
Technology $340,177 $521,933 $752,557 $325,377
Survival $577,855 $500,643 $432,660 $488,689
School philosophy
$626,859 $194,397 $304,105 $227,511
Self-concept $507,239 $944,246 $245,776 $500,773
Public image $501,294 $1,355,700 $447,002 $320,773
geographic domain
$492,466 $1,205,100 $369,499 $349,535
Table 6 Comparisons of Performance:University RankingMission Component
Both Neither University Only
Business School Only
Customers 14.95 18.25 19.89 16.73
Products 15.55 30 35.78 5.36
Technology 13.32 17.81 16.67 10.16
Survival 10.97 15.71 16.13 25.93
School philosophy
17.63 9.36 17.00 7.19
Self-concept 15.60 21.86 12.72 17.58
Public image 13.47 57.17 20.24 10.24
geographic domain
14.67 27.85 16.04 19.00
Table 6 Comparisons of Performance:College of Business RankingMission Component
Both Neither University Only
Business School Only
Customers 1.45 1.40 1.23 1.35
Products 1.37 1.43 2.11 2.01
Technology 2.01 1.29 1.43 1.53
Survival 1.83 1.03 1.10 1.36
School philosophy
1.56 0.76 1.08 1.23
Self-concept 1.50 1.03 1.08 1.31
Public image 1.40 1.23 1.34 1.73
geographic domain
1.42 1.06 1.22 2.18
Implications for Future Research
Further research into the link between multiple identity alignment/conflict is warranted
A more qualitative approach to alignment/ conflict could clarify the relationship