Customer Service Focus and

Mission Articulation as

Measures of Organizational Effectiveness

in Higher Education Institutions:

Driving Student Success

Rana Zeine, MD, PhD, MBA

Associate Professor

Saint James School of Medicine

The Extent to which Members Throughout

an Organization Understand that

They Have a Responsibility to

Identify and Satisfy the Needs

of Customers and Clients

Customer Service Focus

Cooke, R.A. 1997. Organizational Effectiveness Inventory®. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics

The Extent to which the Organizational

Mission and Philosophy Are

• Clearly Defined

• Understood

• Communicated and Widely-Shared

• Exemplified by Members

• Actions Illustrate Priorities

Articulation of Mission

Cooke, R.A. 1997. Organizational Effectiveness Inventory®. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics

Behavioral

Norms

CURRENT

CULTURE

Desired

Values

IDEAL

CULTURE

Cooke & Szumal (2000). Using the Organizational Culture Inventory to Understand

the Operating Cultures of Organizations. In Ashkanasy, Wilderom & Peterson (Eds),

Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

MISSION

&

PHILOSOPHY

Systems

Structures,

Technology,

Skills &

Qualities

CAUSAL

FACTORS

Individual,

Group &

Organizational

OUTCOMES

T

H

E

O

R

E

T

I

C

A

L

M

O

D

E

L

Evolve

Customer Service Focus & Articulation of Mission

EFFECTIVENESS

B ‘Best Fit’

To Assess Levels of

1. CUSTOMER SERVICE FOCUS

2. ARTICULATION of MISSION

in Higher Education Institutions

Objective

Students

Parents

Postgraduate Trainees, Fellows

Faculty

Administrators, Staff Employees

Alumni

Benefactors

Employers of Higher Education Graduates

Governments

Society, the General Public(Webster & Hammond 2011, Conway, Mackay & Yorke 1994)

Higher Education Customers Are Stakeholders:

Consider the Universe of Needs

• Students Are 1° ‘Consumers’ of the Learning Experiences

Offered by Educational Institution

• Clients and Customers Are Persons Who Evaluate and Pay

for Products or Services that they Deem Beneficial, while

the Deliverer Aims to Generate Repeats of that Process as

Often as Possible

• Students Should Be at the Center of ‘Customer Service’

Philosophies that Focus on Teaching and Learning

Outcomes

• Students Charters Have Been Developed by Some Higher

Education Institutions that Delineate the Student-University

Relationship as Client-Based (Pitman 2000)

Students As Clients of Higher Education

• In Response to Recent Demands by Congress for Better

Analysis of the Quality of Higher Education in Relation to

Aggregated Government Investment in Higher Education

Institutions, a Model has been Proposed that Evaluates the

Value-Added through Higher Education Using Financial

Return on Investment for Government Lenders (Sparks 2011)

• Increasing Default Rates on Student Loans Reflects the

Inadequate Earning Power of Higher Education Graduates

• “the Higher Up the Administrator Is within the Higher

Education Hierarchy, the Higher the Levels of Reported

Market Orientation toward Students” (Webster, Hammond & Rothwell 2010)

Governments As Clients of Higher Education

• Online OEI® Survey: March 1st to April 2nd , 2012

• Likert-type Scales to Quantitate Responses

• Mean Score Results Were Compared to

1) the Historical Average: 50th percentile = Median of

OEI® Scores Obtained from Members of 1084

Organizational Units, and to

2) Constructive Benchmarks = Median of OEI® Results

from Members of 172 Organizational Units with

Predominantly Constructive Operating Cultures

Survey Methods: Organizational

Effectiveness Inventory (OEI®)

Cooke, R.A. 1997. Organizational Effectiveness Inventory®. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergisticshttp://www.humansynergistics.com

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

USAIndia

UKAustralia

FranceEthiopia

EgyptMacedoniaCosta Rica

JordanWales

New ZealandCanada

SpainDenmark

Greecend

Number of Respondents

Home Countries of Institutional Affiliations of 52 Higher Education Professionals Surveyed

North America

Europe

India

Australia

Latin America

Middle East

Africa

Gender & Job Role Distributions of OEI®

Respondents

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Gender

Female

Male

nd

Organizational Level

Faculty / Professor

Director

Department Chair

Associate Dean

Dean

Provost / Dean Academic Affairs

President

nd

Percent of Respondents

D

E

M

O

G

R

A

P

H

I

C

S

Years with Organizational & Education

Level Distributions for OEI® Respondents Percent of Respondents

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Years with Organization< 6 months

6 months to 1 year1 to 2 years2 to 4 years4 to 6 years

6 to 10 years10 to 15 years

>15 yearsnd

EducationProfessional degree (Certificate)

Master’s degreeDoctorate degree

MD / PhDJD

Other

D

E

M

O

G

R

A

P

H

I

C

S

Organizational Type & Institutional Level

Distributions for OEI® Respondents

Percent of Respondents

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Type of Higher Educational Institution

For-profit, Public

For-profit, Private

Not-for-profit, Public

Not-for-profit, Private

Institutional Level

Associate's College

Bachelor's College

Master's College / University

Doctorate-granting University

Special Focus Institution

nd

D

E

M

O

G

R

A

P

H

I

C

S

Customer Service Focus Faculty, Not-For-Profit, Male & Female Undesirable

Administrators & For-Profit More Desirable

Historical Average

Median, 50th percentile

0 1 2 3 4 5

FemaleMale

FacultyAdministrators

For-profit, PublicFor-profit, Private

Not-for-profit, PublicNot-for-profit, Private

Total

Constructive Benchmark

n = 8

n = 29n = 10

n = 4

n = 20

n = 25

n = 26n = 24

n = 51

*

* *

*

Mean Score

± SE

p < .10

p < .05* * *

* *

Mission

&

Philosophy

One-way ANOVA

• Scores for Customer Service Focus Fell Below Both the

Historical Average and the Constructive Benchmark for

Total Respondents, and for Public Not-For-Profits, Private

Not-For-Profits, Faculty, Male and Female Subgroups

• Private For-Profits scores were at the Historical Average

• Administrators Scored Above the Historical Average, and

Significantly Higher than the Faculty Subgroup (p<0.05)

• Public for-Profits Scored Above the Constructive

Benchmark, and Significantly Higher than the Public Not-

For-Profits (p<0.1)

Customer Service Focus is Undesirable in

Higher Education Institutions

Articulation of MissionNot-For-Profit Undesirable,

For-Profit Desirable

Mission

&

PhilosophyMean Score

± SE

p < .05

0 1 2 3 4 5

FemaleMale

FacultyAdministrators

For-profit, PublicFor-profit, Private

Not-for-profit, PublicNot-for-profit, Private

Total

Historical Average

Median, 50th percentile

Constructive Benchmark

n = 8n = 30

n = 10

n = 4

n = 20n = 25

n = 26n = 25

n = 52

* *

* * * *

* * One-way ANOVA

• Scores for Articulation of Mission Were Above the

Historical Average but Below the Constructive Benchmark

for Total Respondents, and for Faculty, Administrators,

Male and Female subgroups

• Administrators Trended Higher than Faculty

• Not-For-Profits Scored Below the Historical Average

• For-Profits Scored above the Constructive Benchmark

• The Differences Between the Small Public For-Profit

Subgroup and the Not-For-Profit subgroups reached

statistical significance (p< 0.05)

Articulation of Mission is Undesirable in

Not-For-Profit Higher Education Institutions

• Academicians’ Reluctance to Develop a Service-Provider

Identity or to View their Relationships as Client-Based:

1. Weak Customer Service Focus

2. Weakest Customer Service Focus in Faculty and Public

Not-For-Profits

3. Strong Customer Service Focus in Administrators

4. Weak Articulation of Mission in Not-For-Profits

5. Robust Articulation of Mission in For-Profits

• A Lack of Confidence in Market Orientation Compelling

them to Generate Multiple Mission Statements for

Presentation to Different Audiences (Taylor & Morphew 2010)

Discussion on Diagnosis in Higher Education

1. Adopt a More Comprehensive, Involved, and Proactive

Strategy to Developing, Managing, and Maintaining the

Student–University Relationship

• Use a Relationship Marketing Approach (Bowden 2011)

• Select and Recruit Students/Faculty Aligned with

Institutional Goals (‘Right’ Customers) (Harrison-Walker 2010)

2. Use the Faculty Development Plan to Operationalize

Mission-Driven Strategic Initiatives

• Align Faculty Resources with the Mission and Goals

• Integrate Institutional Needs with Those of Individual

Faculty (Legorreta, Kelly & Sablynski 2006; Witcher 2003)

Recommendations

Michael Hamlet

Keller Graduate School of Management, DeVry College of NY

Patrick Blessinger

Higher Education Teaching & Learning Association (HETL)

Cheryl Boglarsky

Human Synergistics International, Inc., MI, USA

Frank Palatnick

International Agency for Economic Development , UN

Brad Herrick

University of Texas, TX, USA

Acknowledgements Customer Service Focus and

Mission Articulation … in

Higher Education InstitutionsManagement Education: An International Journal, vol.13

Supplemental

Current Culture Ideal Culture OCI®

NOT-FOR-PROFIT

FOR-PROFIT

N=34

N=24

N=17

N=12CONSTRUCTIVE

AGGRESSIVE

DEFENSIVE

PASSIVE

DEFENSIVE

50th Percentile

(Historical)

H

i

g

h

e

r

E

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

O

C

I

R

e

s

u

l

t

s

Zeine, Boglarsky,

Blessinger & Hamlet, 2011.

SUBGROUPS

T

H

E

O

R

E

T

I

C

A

L

M

O

D

E

L

Impact of Culture on Effectiveness

Effective, Creative

Self-Enhancing

Develop Others

Coercive

Abrupt

CynicalNoncommittal

Self-Protecting

Volatility

Vulnerability

Sustainability

Research and development by Cooke & Lafferty. Copyright © by Human Synergistics International. All Rights Reserved.

Confrontational

Withdraw

Receptive