Organizational culture in public and non-public higher education institutions in Poland: A study based on Cameron and Quinn’s model

3.2.1 The concept of organizational culture

In the literature on the subject one can find many definitions of organizational culture. For example, according to a foundational definition presented by Schein, it is “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 you perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” [50, p.18]. And other classics, Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov define culture as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others.” [24, p. 6].

Organizational culture has been the subject of many research projects. As Kezar and Eckel noticed “in the 1980 s, organizational researchers across various disciplines began examining the role of culture within organizational life [37, 53], and then connected it to effectiveness [56] and central processes (i.e., leadership, governance) of the organization [51]. Culture shifted from being used as a descriptive device to becoming linked with improvement and success” [30, p. 438]. Current studies on organizational culture examine a wide array of factors and relations, e.g. the impact of supportive organizational culture on the success of cutting-edge technology, such as cloud computing usage in a company [17], the interdependence of friendship among workers, transformational leadership and organizational culture [31], challenges related to merging different organizational cultures in virtual teams [5], the impact of different generational groups on the organizational behavior [2], the role which gender norms and expectations about parenting play in establishing the family-friendly versus the father-friendly university [49], the importance of mission statement in understanding and communicating the organizational culture [4], or the impact of employer branding on reinforcing and changing organizational culture [20].

A number of categorizations of organizational culture have been proposed. One of the classical divisions was presented by R. Harrison [22] and C. Handy [21]. As Sułkowski [55, p. 174] stresses, the concepts of both authors were created separately but cover very similar values. There are four main types of organizations which form specific cultures, oriented towards power, roles, tasks or people. And Ling-hsing Chang and Lin [33] discussed the following categorizations of organizational culture: results-versus process-oriented culture [1, 25], tightly controlled versus loosely controlled culture [1, 52], job-oriented versus employee-oriented culture [1, 59], closed system versus open system culture [1, 3], [7], [15], [25], [27], [29] or professional versus parochial culture [1], [25], [39].

3.2.2 Organizational culture in higher education

According to studies conducted by Kezar and Eckel [30], early research on organizational culture in higher education focused on student campus cultures and showed that campuses had cultures that differed uniquely from other types of institutions; they described the myths and rituals of colleges, and student and faculty subcultures [12], [35], [48]. Several later studies on higher education linked institutional culture with organizational success [11], [44]. And yet further studies showed the way in which different cultures shaped various institutional functions including governance [11], leadership [8], and planning [23], [32]. It is worth mentioning that as early as in 1988, a distinguished scholar, William Tierney noted the lack of cultural research on higher education and stressed the need to conduct studies on that matter. As he remarked, “Even the most seasoned college and university administrators often ask themselves, “What holds this place together? Is it mission, values, bureaucratic procedures, or strong personalities? How does this place run and what does it expect from its leaders?” These questions are usually asked in moments of frustration, when seemingly rational, well-laid plans have failed or have met with unexpected resistance. Similar questions are also asked frequently by members new to the organization, persons who want to know “how things are done around here.” [57, p. 3]. And, interestingly enough, another scientist, David Dill, commented “Ironically, the organizations in Western society which most approximate the essential characteristics of Japanese firms are academic institutions. They are characterized by lifetime employment, collective decision making, individual responsibility, infrequent promotion, anti-implicit, informal evaluation” [14, p. 307, quoted after 57, p. 7]. As far as more contemporary research on organizational culture in higher education is concerned, Ferreira and Hill [16] concentrated on differences between the non-public and the public sector. And Sułkowski [54] analyzed the multi-paradigm understanding of culture of higher education institutions. It should be also mentioned here that quite a number of case studies in higher education institutions have been analyzed with the use of the Cameron and Quinn’s model (to be discussed in the subsequent chapter) [18].

3.2.3 Models of organizational culture. Cameron and Quinn’s competing values framework model

A number of models describing organizational culture have been created. For example, in the classical model created by Edgar Schein, organizational culture is divided into three different levels: artifacts, espoused beliefs and values and basic underlying assumptions [50, p. 24]. Another model, presented by Daniel Denison focused on the link between organizational culture and bottom-line performance measures such as profitability, growth, quality, innovation, customer and employee satisfaction [13]. Another model, designed by Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn in 1988, called the Competing Values Framework, puts forward the assumption that the nature of organizational culture is based on two dimensions: internal/external focus, and stability/flexibility structure. Taken together, these two dimensions create four quadrants which represent four sets of values that guide organizational tasks of environmental management and internal integration. What should be stressed is that the underlying dimensions present contrasting values. For example, organizations need to be adaptable and flexible, but also stable and controlled. There needs to be growth, resource acquisition and external support, but also tight internal information management and formal communication. The framework suggests an emphasis on the value of human resources, but also emphasizes planning and goal setting. The Competing Values Framework, which will constitute the theoretical basis for research in this paper is presented in Figure 1. The model and the accompanying validated research method, The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) developed by Cameron and Quinn to define the dominant type of the organizational culture in organizations were chosen as research tools for this study as they have been successfully used in examining organizational culture in many branches of the industry, e.g. logistics [34], or local governments [36].

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 1

Cultural profiles based on Competing Values Framework.

Four main types of company cultures were defined in the model. The first one, clan culture is held together by loyalty or tradition and attaches great importance to cohesion and morale. It should be noted here that in the case of the higher education sector in Poland, paying great attention to tradition concerns primarily public universities, given that the oldest non-public university is not even 30 years old. On the other hand, it should be emphasized that as far as the issue of loyalty is concerned, one might assume that it is the non-public universities that may be characterized by stronger loyalty to the founders – entrepreneurs. Value Drivers for this type of the culture are: commitment, communication and development and Quality Strategies are based on: empowerment, team building, employee involvement, Human Resource development and open communication. The second one, adhocracy culture, is focused on being at the cutting edge of the enterprise.

It is a dynamic, entrepreneurial, and creative workplace. Value Drivers cover innovative outputs, transformation and agility, whereas Quality Strategies focus on surprise and delight, creating new standards, anticipating needs, continuous improvement and finding creative solutions. One might assume that neither public, nor non-public universities in Poland could be strongly characterized by this type of culture, as educational institutions in Poland are quite conservative in general. The next one, market culture, is result-oriented and the glue that holds the organization together is the emphasis on winning. While Value Drivers comprise market share, goal achievement and profitability, Quality Strategies are directed at measuring customer preferences, improving productivity, creating external partnerships, enhancing competitiveness and involving customers and suppliers. It can be assumed that this model should be particularly well suited to non-public universities, which operate more strongly on market principles and must compete more strongly for clients who condition their development and survival. However, it should be taken into account that changes in the legal system in Poland also create a climate of more intense competition which was not previously encountered in public universities, especially in the field of scientific research. And lastly, hierarchy culture is based on formal rules, procedures and stability. Its Value Drivers are: efficiency, punctuality, consistency and uniformity while Quality Strategies are focused on: error detection, measurement, process control, systematic problem solving and quality tools [42, pp. 2– 8]. These features seem to be characteristic of all universities in Poland, especially big, old, prestigious, public ones, known for formal procedures, paying great attention to academic titles, rigid hierarchy and slow promotion processes.

As it has already been mentioned, the OCAI method has also been used to study the organizational culture in higher education units in various countries. The findings show that cultures vary in different countries and institutions [18]. For example, at Ohio State University the dominant (and preferred) culture was clan culture [6], whereas universities in Slovenia had a highly developed market culture [41]. Vasyakin et al. [58] found that although at the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics in Russia the prevailing culture was hierarchy culture, the majority of students wished to change it to either adhocracy or market. In a number of Christian higher education institutions in the United States and the District of Columbia the dominant culture was clan culture, though some of the institutions reported a dominant type of “adhocracy”, and it is worth mentioning that they adopted innovations more frequently [40].