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