zeine et al. customer service, management education 2014

Management EducationAn International Journal

onthEorgAnIzAtIon.coM

VOLUME 14 ISSUE 1

__________________________________________________________________________

Customer Service Focus and Mission Articulation as Measures of Organizational Effectiveness in Higher Education Institutions

Driving Student Success

RANA ZEINE, FRANK PALATNICK, CHERYL BOGLARSKY, PATRICK BLESSINGER, BRAD HERRICK, AND MICHAEL HAMLET

MANAGEMENT EDUCATION: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL www.ontheorganization.com

First published in 2014 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.commongroundpublishing.com

ISSN: 2327-8005

© 2014 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2014 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact [email protected].

Management Education: An International Journal is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion- referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published.

Management Education: An International Journal

Volume 14, 2014, www.ontheorganization.com, ISSN 2327-8005

© Common Ground, Rana Zeine, Frank Palatnick, Cheryl Boglarsky, Patrick Blessinger,

Brad Herrick, Michael Hamlet, All Rights Reserved Permissions: [email protected]

Customer Service Focus and Mission Articulation

as Measures of Organizational Effectiveness in

Higher Education Institutions:Driving Student

SuccessRana Zeine, Saint James School of Medicine, Netherlands

Frank Palatnick, International Agency for Economic Development, USA

Cheryl Boglarsky, Human Synergistics International, USA

Patrick Blessinger, International Higher Education Teaching and Learning Association, USA

Brad Herrick, University of Texas, USA

Michael Hamlet, DeVry College of New York, USA

Abstract: Customer Service Focus and Mission Articulation are fundamental measures of organizational effectiveness

reflecting the extent to which institutional values are manifested in structures, systems, human resources, and outcomes.

Many higher education institutions are interested in better satisfying the needs of students and their families, alumni and

benefactors, governments, and employers, to fulfill the aspirations of society at large. To analyze Mission Articulation

and Customer Service Focus in higher education, 52 faculty members and administrators from institutions in more than

16 countries were surveyed using the Human Synergistics International Organizational Effectiveness Inventory® (OEI®)

Survey. Results revealed that scores from total respondents fell below the Constructive Benchmarks for both parameters,

and below the Historical Average (50th percentile) for Customer Service Focus. Subgroup analysis revealed that scores

from private and public not-for-profit institutions fell below both the Historical Averages (50th percentiles) and the

Constructive Benchmarks for each of the two parameters. By contrast, for-profits approached the Constructive

Benchmarks and public for-profits scored significantly higher than not-for-profit subgroups. For Customer Service

Focus, scores from faculty, male and female subgroups fell below the Historical Average, while administrators

approached the Constructive Benchmark scoring significantly higher than the faculty subgroup. We recommend

strengthening the relationship between students and their higher education institutions by improving Mission Articulation

and sharpening the focus on student educational needs and outcomes.

Keywords: Higher Education, Customer Service Focus, Mission Articulation, Student, Client, Leadership, Management,

Administration, Organizational Effectiveness, Organizational Culture, Not-for-profit, For-profit

Introduction

rticulation of Mission is the extent to which the stated mission is clearly defined,

exemplified and understood by the membership of an organization, while Customer

Service Focus is the extent to which members throughout an organization understand

that they have a responsibility to identify and satisfy the needs of customers/clients (Cooke 1997). These two measures have the potential for impacting organizational outcomes (Szumal

2001). We hypothesize that levels of Mission Articulation and Customer Service Focus are

positively correlated with the organizational effectiveness of higher education institutions,

whether they follow a not-for-profit or a for-profit philosophy. In order to assess Mission

Articulation and Customer Service Focus as indicators of organizational effectiveness in higher

education institutions, we used the Organizational Effectiveness Inventory (OEI®) which is a

validated survey designed to measure attitudinal, behavioral, managerial, and leadership factors

that reliably impact effectiveness (Cooke 1997; Szumal 2001).

Who Are the Customers in Higher Education?

The concept of ‘customer service’ in teaching and learning has been the subject of vigorous debates among education professionals (Svensson and Wood 2007). Some universities have

A

MANAGEMENT EDUCATION: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

rejected the notion that students are ‘customers’, arguing that studentship presumes certain roles

and responsibilities, and places limitations on the range of demands that students can make in the

context of ‘customer service’ (Wueste 2009; Schwartzman 1995). However, many higher

education institutions have accepted the analogy that students ought to be treated as ‘clients’, and

have developed Student Charters that delineate the student-university relationship accordingly

(Pitman 2000). In our view, clients are very similar to customers, both being 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. There has been a tendency to limit the scope

of ‘customer service’ policies to non-educational services, including dormitories, cafeterias,

bookstores, administration, counseling and support services, lifestyle and recreational attractions, offered by higher education institutions (Sherry et al. 2004). Yet, the core mission of educational

institutions is the delivery of effective teaching to populations of students within the definition of

each university/college for “effective teaching”. The teaching mission impacts society at large by

developing the human resources needed to sustain it. Students are the primary ‘consumers’ of the

learning experiences offered by educational institutions, and should therefore be at the center of

customer service philosophies that focus on teaching and learning outcomes. In addition to

students, parents, postgraduate trainees, faculty, staff, alumni, benefactors, employers,

governments and the public are all stakeholders who are affected by the effectiveness of Mission

Articulation and the degree of Customer Service Focus manifested by higher education

institutions (Webster and Hammond 2011).

These customer categories hold expectations that may be either harmonious or conflicting depending on their vested interests; thus, educational institutions might consider the universe of

client needs when formulating their strategic plans (Conway, Mackay, and Yorke 1994).

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). An elevation in student loan default

rates has occurred over the past several decades and is indicative of the unwillingness of

graduates to pay back their loans due to inadequate earning power. Strengthening the market

orientation of higher education institutions is one approach to improve the chances of success for

graduates. A survey of business school administrators revealed that “the higher up the

administrator is within the higher education hierarchy, the higher the levels of reported market

orientation toward students” (Webster, Hammond, and Rothwell 2010).

Student Client Expectations as Primary Customers

When measured together at the end of a term, the extent to which student expectations are

perceived to have been fulfilled has been found to be a good predictor of student satisfaction

(Appleton-Knapp and Krentler 2006). Student satisfaction with educational offerings is a critical

outcome of the exchange between teachers and students, since, as clients, students expect to gain

new insights, knowledge, skills and abilities which empower them to achieve measurable success

(Guolla 1999). Learning, as perceived by students, has been correlated with ‘course satisfaction’,

while instructor enthusiasm has been correlated with levels of ‘instructor satisfaction’ (Guolla

1999). Furthermore, studies have revealed that when “mishaps or mistakes” occur in the

classroom, students tend to be primarily concerned with whether or not the professor effectively solves the problem, regardless of the magnitude of their initial emotional response to the “service

failure” (Iyer and Muncy 2008).

Ways of fostering student satisfaction in higher education have been explored in the short-

term through guaranteeing instructor performance (McCollough and Gremler 1999), and in the

long-term through building customer relationships (Bejou 2005). A broader notion of exchange

may best apply whereby the student-organization relationship constitutes a “generalized

2

ZEINE ET. AL: CUSTOMER SERVICE FOCUS AND MISSION ARTICULATION AS MEASURES OF

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

exchange” which “necessarily entails delayed reciprocity” such that “instead of having a short-

term quid pro quo mentality, people hope they may benefit at some unspecified time in the future, and obligations are discharged less precisely and over time” (Alford 2002, 341). Some

believe that it would be valuable to assess service quality in higher education by using a wider

range of variables to correlate (a) intention to leave, (b) overall satisfaction with the institution,

and (c) trust in its management, with (i) a student focused culture, (ii) internationalization, (ii)

access and approachableness of services, (iii) marketing and support, (iv) infrastructure and (v)

academic quality (De Jager and Gbadamosi 2010).

In this study, we examined perceptions of faculty and administrators regarding Mission

Articulation and customer satisfaction at their higher education institutions. We advised

participants to consider their primary, secondary, internal and external clients when evaluating

Customer Service Focus.

Methods

Participants in this study were 52 higher education faculty and administrators who individually

completed the Human Synergistics Organizational Effectiveness Inventory as an online survey

(Cooke 1997, ; OEI®, web-based version, http://www.humansynergistics.com/) between March

1st and April 2nd of 2012. Likert-type scales were used to quantitate responses. Respondents were

affiliated with institutions located in North America, Europe, India, Australia, Latin America,

Africa and the Middle East, representing higher education professionals in at least 16 countries

(Human-Synergistics 2012). The OEI® probes 43 effectiveness measures including mission and

philosophy; 29 causal factors encompassing systems, structures, human resources,

communications, supervisory leadership; and 12 outcomes relating to individual, departmental

and organizational performance (Cooke and Szumal 2000; Szumal 2001). Demographics data

and score results for the two measures of mission and philosophy, Mission Articulation (n=52), and Customer Service Focus (n=51), are presented and analyzed in this paper (Figures 1&2). The

mean scores and standard errors were computed and plotted for total respondents (n=52,51) and

for eight subgroups: not-for-profit-private (n=8), not-for-profit-public (n=30,29), for-profit-

private (n=10), for-profit-public (n=4), administrators (n=20), faculty (n=25), male (n=26) and

female (n=25,24) (Figures 1&2). OEI® results were compared to the Historical Average (50th

percentile), taken as the median of the OEI® scores of members from 1084 organizational units,

and to Constructive Benchmarks, based on the median of OEI® results for 172 organizational

units with predominantly Constructive operating cultures (Human-Synergistics 2012). For each

of the two parameters, the Constructive Benchmark score was greater than the Historical

Average score, and any results falling below the value for the Historical Average were

considered undesirable. One-way ANOVA was used to assess the statistical significance of inter-

subgroup differences.

Results

Demographics of Respondents

The respondents’ institutions were distributed internationally across many countries including the

United States (n=23), India (n=4), United Kingdom (n=3), France (n=2), Australia (n=2),

Canada, Wales, Spain, Denmark, Greece, Macedonia, New Zealand, Ethiopia, Egypt, Jordan and

Costa Rica. Different institutional levels were represented including 56% Doctorate-granting

universities, 19% Master’s colleges/universities, 13% Bachelor’s colleges, 6% Associate’s

colleges, 2% Special Focus and 4% other. The majority of participants were in the 40-59 years

age bracket (56%), followed by the ≥ 60 years (21%) and the < 39 years (17%) age groups.

Respondents served as faculty/professors (48%), directors (19%), associate deans (6%), chairs

3


(4%), deans (4%), provost/deans academic affairs (4%), presidents (2%) and undetermined

(13%). Those who had spent more than 15 years at their current institution constituted 15%,

while 6% had spent 10 to15 years, 19% had served for 6 to10 years, 23% for 4 to 6 years, 19%

for 2 to 4 years, 6% for 1 to 2 years and 6% for 0.5 years with 4% having spent less than 6

months in their current position. The male to female ratio was 1:1.

Mission Articulation is Undesirable in Not-For-Profit Higher Education

Institutions

Scores for Mission Articulation were above the Historical Average (50th percentile, 3.55) but

below the Constructive Benchmark (4.01) for total respondents (mean 3.65 ± 0.13 SE), and for

faculty (mean 3.57 ± 0.19 SE) , administrators (mean 3.71 ± 0.24 SE), male (mean 3.68 ± 0.21

SE) and female (mean 3.62 ± 0.17 SE) subgroups as shown in Figure 1. As compared to the

faculty subgroup, a trend for higher scores was noted in the administrator subgroup.

Scores for private not-for-profit (mean 3.15 ± 0.26 SE) and public not-for-profit (mean 3.47

± 0.17 SE) subgroups fell below the Historical Average (Figure 1). By contrast, scores for

private for-profits (mean 4.08 ± 0.30 SE) and those for public for-profit (mean 4.85 ± 0.15 SE)

rose above the Constructive Benchmark (Figure 1). The differences between the small public for-profit subgroup and the two private institutional subgroups reached statistical significance at p-

value < 0.05 (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Articulation of Mission. OEI®

Mean score ± standard error (SE) for total respondents, and for female, male,

faculty, administrator, public for-profit, private for-profit, public not-for-profit and private not-for-profit subgroups

compared to the Historical Average and the Constructive Benchmark. Differences are statistically significant between the

public for-profit and each of the two private subgroups (p<0.05).

Customer Service Focus is Undesirable in Higher Education Institutions

Scores for Customer Service Focus were below both the Historical Average (50th percentile,

3.71) and the Constructive Benchmark (3.96) for total respondents (mean 3.42 ± 0.13 SE), and

for public not-for-profits (mean 3.11 ± 0.19 SE), private not-for-profits (mean 3.66 ± 0.17 SE),

faculty (mean 3.15 ± 0.20 SE), male (mean 3.51 ± 0.18 SE) and female (mean 3.40 ± 0.20 SE)

4



subgroups as shown in Figure 2. Private for-profits (mean 3.75 ± 0.22 SE) achieved scores at the

Historical Average. By contrast, administrators (mean 3.88 ± 0.15 SE) scored above the Historical Average, and significantly higher than the faculty subgroup (p-value < 0.05, Figure 2).

Notably, the scores for the public for-profit (mean 4.44 ± 0.41 SE) subgroup rose markedly

above the Constructive Benchmark, and were significantly higher than those for the public not-

for-profit subgroup (p-value < 0.1, Figure 2).

Figure 2: Customer Service Focus. OEI®

Mean score ± standard error (SE) for total respondents, and for female, male,

faculty, administrator, public for-profit, private for-profit, public not-for-profit and private not-for-profit subgroups

compared to the Historical Average and the Constructive Benchmark. Differences reached statistical significance

between for-profit- and not-for-profit public subgroups (p < 0.10), and between faculty and administrator subgroups (p <

0.05).

Discussion

In this study we probed higher education professionals at colleges and universities worldwide

regarding their perceptions of Mission Articulation and Customer Service Focus at their

institutions using the OEI® survey (Cooke 1997). Our findings revealed that the overall levels of

Mission Articulation exhibited by higher education institutions were comparable to current benchmarks for this organizational measure (Figure 1). However, not-for-profit institutions had

weaker levels of Mission Articulation than for-profit institutions, and levels for both private- and

public-not-for-profits were lower than the benchmarks (Figure 1). The reasons for having

superior Mission Articulation at for-profit higher education institutions are most likely related to

corporate leadership and management practices that place a high priority on clearly defining,

illustrating, and widely disseminating their mission statements. Heightened awareness of the

precise mission can increase motivation and stimulate individual and collective activity towards

fulfilling that mission. Our observation that not-for-profit institutions have lower than ideal levels

of Mission Articulation suggests that not-for-profits are not truly fulfilling their missions at the

desired levels, and could therefore better their outcomes by adopting attitudes and behaviors that

improve the articulation of their missions.

5


Our results revealed weakness in Customer Service Focus with overall levels that were

clearly lower than the benchmarks (Figure 2). The greatest contributors to this unfavorable result

were the public-not-for-profits, and the non-administrator faculty, men and women (Figure 2).

By contrast, administrators exhibited a markedly superior level of Customer Service Focus as

compared to faculty members (Figure 2), an observation that is consistent with various other

perceptual differences that have been described in the literature between academicians and non-

academic administrators. The reasons for these differences stem from the nature of academic life

which is largely centered on competitive academic achievement. Academicians are generally

reluctant to develop a service-provider identity or to view their relationships as client-based. It is

our position that valuable improvements in organizational effectiveness, including quality of teaching and research outcomes, could be achieved by sensitizing non-administrator faculty to

the customer/client dimension of their relationships with their students, trainees and juniors.

Thus, sharpening the focus on satisfying the needs of various stakeholders at higher education

institutions would be a justifiable prescription for remedying serious deficits uncovered for

public-not-for-profits and faculty subgroups.

Collectively, these measures determine the degree of market orientation by assessing the

level of commitment of organizational members to the customer, and their readiness to adapt to

meet clients’ changing needs (Webster, Hammond, and Rothwell 2010). Our results offer

original insight delineating clearly two trends: firstly those higher education administrators tend

to express more favorable perceptions of market orientation than non-administrator faculty, and

secondly that for-profits express stronger market orientation than not-for-profit higher education institutions (Figures 1&2). Our findings revealing weaknesses in both Mission Articulation and

Customer Service Focus, more marked in not-for-profits (Figures 1&2), are in agreement with

the findings of Taylor and Morphew, 2010, which suggest a lack of confidence on the part of

many higher education institutions in market orientation compelling them to generate multiple

mission statements for presentation to different audiences (Taylor and Morphew 2010).

Mission Articulation requires deliberate efforts to communicate the mission and institutional

goals to all of the faculty and staff members. To foster the link between the mission statement,

goals, student-learning outcomes, and faculty-development programs, a framework has been

proposed that “uses the faculty development plan as a means to operationalize mission-driven

strategic initiatives” (Legorreta, Kelly, and Sablynski 2006, 8). The process of linking faculty

development and school mission is best accomplished through four distinct phases of activity

(FAIR): (1) focus on deriving a list of ranked and rated goals of the school, (2) alignment of faculty resources with the mission and goals, (3) integration of the current institutional needs

with those of individual faculty, and (4) review of the process through improved iterations and

disseminated best practices (Legorreta, Kelly, and Sablynski 2006; Witcher 2003).

Mission statements have become increasingly critical to the accountability, assessment, and

accreditation of higher education programs as evidenced by correlations that have been observed

between mission statement content and measures of business school performance (Palmer and

Short 2008). For-profit organizations usually include eight components in their mission

statements identifying their (1) customers and markets, (2) products and/or services, (3)

technologies utilized, (4) geographic territories, (5) profitability and concern for firm survival,

(6) values and philosophy, (7) self-concept and (8) desired public image (Fugazzotto 2009;

Pearce II and David 1987). Not-for-profit organizations, including higher education institutions, necessarily consider their own history and distinctive competencies, constituencies, resources

and environment in developing their mission (Fugazzotto 2009; Kotler and Fox 1995; Lunenburg

2010). Unfortunately, communication patterns in higher education institutions are “vague and

idiosyncratic”, with most 4-year colleges opting to alter their official mission statements in order

to create more customer-focused versions prior to submission to the U.S. News and World Report

(Taylor and Morphew 2010).

6



Beyond articulating the mission, higher education institutions seek to engage their members,

customers and stakeholders to establish loyalty (Hoyt and Howell 2011). Because student loyalty has been shown to be most strongly determined by psychological attachment and a sense of

belonging to the brand (affective commitment), higher education institutions are urged to adopt a

relationship marketing approach to the management of education services (Bowden 2011). We

are in agreement with Bowden’s observations that there is a “need for a more comprehensive,

involved, and proactive strategy to developing, managing, and maintaining the student–university

relationship” (Bowden 2011, 211) in light of our findings that, as perceived by higher education

faculty, their own relationships with primary and secondary customers could be strengthened to

improve service focus (Figure 2).

Furthermore, the application of marketing theory has introduced the concept of customer

prioritization which encourages the classification of ‘right’, ‘at-risk right’, and ‘wrong’

customers as targets for profitability in the higher education industry, wrong customers being

those who require extra servicing and are more costly for the organization due to incompatibilities (Harrison-Walker 2010). With this in mind, administrators and faculty members

could play a role in the selection of new students, staff and faculty to recruit those whose

individual goals are naturally aligned with organizational objectives. Evidently, studies have

demonstrated that perceptions of shared responsibility for learning positively impact attitudinal,

emotional, and behavioral responses toward the educational experience (Sierra 2010).

Conclusion

We have detected weaknesses in two measures of organizational effectiveness that make higher

education institutions, especially not-for-profits, susceptible to unnecessary shortfalls. To

improve higher education outcomes, we recommend the adoption of corporate-type leadership

and managerial practices intended to strengthen Mission Articulation and to support Customer Service Focus. Opposing points of view have questioned the consequences of treating students as

customers/clients. There are concerns arising from the possibility of developing a sense of

entitlement once a provider-client relationship is established. However, we have previously

argued for the need to develop more constructive organizational cultures, to apply more robust

internal decision-making processes, and to adopt more considerate leadership styles in higher

education institutions (Zeine et al. 2011; Zeine, Boglarsky, Blessinger, et al. 2014; Zeine,

Boglarsky, Daly, et al. 2014). We further encourage not-for-profit institutions to study the

management practices of for-profit higher education institutions, and to continue exploring new

paradigms. Our study is limited by a small sample size, and future research is warranted to

further elucidate best practices for improving the organizational effectiveness of higher education

institutions.

7


REFERENCES

Alford, J. 2002. "Defining the Client in the Public Sector: A Social-Exchange Perspective."

Public Administration Review no. 62 (3):337-346.

Appleton-Knapp, Sara L., and Kathleen A. Krentler. 2006. "Measuring Student Expectations and

Their Effects on Satisfaction: The Importance of Managing Student Expectations."

Journal of Marketing Education no. 28 (3):254-264. doi: 10.1177/0273475306293359.

Bejou, David. 2005. "Treating Students Like Customers." BizEd no. 4 (3):44-47.

Bowden, Jana Lay-Hwa. 2011. "Engaging the Student as a Customer: A Relationship Marketing

Approach." Marketing Education Review no. 21 (3):211-228.

Conway, Tony, Stephen Mackay, and David Yorke. 1994. "Strategic planning in higher

education: Who are the customer." The International Journal of Educational

Management no. 8 (6):29-29.

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

Cooke, R.A., and J.L. Szumal. 2000. "Using the Organizational Culture Inventory to understand

the operating cultures of organizations." In Handbook of Organizational Culture and

Climate, edited by N.M. Ashkanasy, C.P.M. Wilderom and M.F. Peterson, 147-162.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

De Jager, Johan, and Gbolahan Gbadamosi. 2010. "Specific remedy for specific problem:

measuring service quality in South African higher education." Higher Education no. 60

(3):251-267. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9298-6.

Fugazzotto, Sam J. 2009. "Mission Statements, Physical Space, and Strategy in Higher

Education." Innovative Higher Education no. 34 (5):285-298. doi: 10.1007/s10755-009-

9118-z. Guolla, Michael. 1999. "Assessing the Teaching Quality to Student Satisfaction Relationship:

Applied Customer." Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice no. 7 (3):87.

Harrison-Walker, L. Jean. 2010. "Customer prioritization in higher education: targeting 'right'

students for long-term profitability." Journal of Marketing for Higher Education no. 20

(2):191-208. doi: 10.1080/08841241.2010.526355.

Hoyt, Jeff E., and Scott L. Howell. 2011. "Beyond Customer Satisfaction: Reexamining

Customer Loyalty to Evaluate Continuing Education Programs." Journal of Continuing

Higher Education no. 59 (1):21-33. doi: 10.1080/07377363.2011.544979.

Human-Synergistics. 2012. OEI Report, HETL-Keller OEI Higher Ed Research Project. USA:

Human Synergistics, Inc.

Iyer, Rajesh, and James A. Muncy. 2008. "Service Recovery in Marketing Education: It's What

We Do That Counts." Journal of Marketing Education no. 30 (1):21-32. doi: 10.1177/0273475307312195.

Kotler, P., and K.F.A. Fox. 1995. Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions. 2nd ed.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Legorreta, Leonardo, Craig A. Kelly, and Chris J. Sablynski. 2006. "Linking Faculty

Development to the Business School's Mission." Journal of Education for Business

(September-October):3-10.

Lunenburg, Fred C. 2010. "Creating a Professional Learning Community." National Forum of

Educational Administration and Supervision Journal no. 27 (4):1-7.

McCollough, Michael A., and Dwayne D. Gremler. 1999. "Guaranteeing Student Satisfaction:

An Exercise in Treating Students as Customers." Journal of Marketing Education no. 21

(2):118-130. doi: 10.1177/0273475399212005. Palmer, Timothy B., and Jeremy C. Short. 2008. "Mission Statements in U.S. Colleges of

Business: An Empirical Examination of Their Content With Linkages to Configurations

8



and Performance." Academy of Management Learning & Education no. 7 (4):454-470.

doi: 10.5465/amle.2008.35882187. Pearce II, J.A., and F. David. 1987. "Corporate Mission Statements: The Bottom Line." Academy

of Management Executive no. 1 (2):109.

Pitman, Tim. 2000. "Perceptions of Academics and Students as Customers: a survey of

administrative staff in higher education." Journal of Higher Education Policy &

Management no. 22 (2):165-175. doi: 10.1080/13600800050196876.

Schwartzman, Roy. 1995. "Are students customers? The metaphoric mismatch between

management and education." Education no. 116:215-222.

Sherry, Carol, Ravi Bhat, Bob Beaver, and Anthony Ling. 2004. Students’ as customers: The

expectations and perceptions of local and international students. 15,

http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/conference/2004/PDF/P017-jt.pdf.

Sierra, Jeremy J. 2010. "Shared Responsibility and Student Learning." Journal of Marketing

Education no. 32 (1):104-111. doi: 10.1177/0273475309344802. Sparks, Roland J. 2011. "A Value-Added Model To Measure Higher Education Returns On

Government Investment." Contemporary Issues in Education Research no. 4 (2):15-21.

Svensson, Goran, and Greg Wood. 2007. "Are university students really customers? When

illusion may lead to delusion for all!" International journal of educational management

no. 21 (1):17-28.

Szumal, Janet L. 2001. Reliability and Validity of the OEI. Reliability and Validity Report: 1-21,

http://www.human-

synergistics.com.au/Files/ResearchAndPublications/OEIReliabilityReport.pdf.

Taylor, Barrett J., and Christopher C. Morphew. 2010. "An Analysis of Baccalaureate College

Mission Statements." Higher education research and development no. 51:483-503.

Webster, Robert L., and Kevin L. Hammond. 2011. "Are Students and their Parents Viewed as Customers by AACSB--International Member Schools? Survey Results and

Implications for University Business School Leaders." Academy of Educational

Leadership Journal no. 15 (2):1-17.

Webster, Robert L., Kevin L. Hammond, and James C. Rothwell. 2010. "Customer And Market

Orientation Within AACSB Member Business Schools: Comparative Views From

Three Levels Of Administrators." American Journal of Business Education no. 3 (7):79-

91.

Witcher, B.J. 2003. "Policy management of strategy (hoshin kanri)." Strategic Change no. 12

(2):83-94. doi: 10.1002/jsc.617.

Wueste, Daniel E. . 2009. "The customer isn’t always right: Limitations of ‘customer service’

approaches to education or why Higher Ed is not Burger King." International Journal

for Educational Integrity no. 6 (1):3-12. Zeine, R., C.A. Boglarsky, E. Daly, P. Blessinger, M. Kurban, and A. Gilkes. 2014. "Considerate

Leadership as a Measure of Effectiveness in Medical and Higher Education: Analysis of

Supervisory/Managerial Leadership." Organizational Cultures: An International

Journal.

Zeine, Rana, Cheryl A. Boglarsky, Patrick Blessinger, and Michel Lukas. 2014. "External

Adaptability of Higher Education Institutions: The Use of Diagnostic Interventions to

Improve Agility." Change Management: An International Journal no. 13.

Zeine, Rana, Cheryl Boglarsky, Patrick Blessinger, and Michael Hamlet. 2011. "Organizational

Culture in Higher Education." In The Strategic Management of Higher Education

Institutions: Serving Students as Customers for Institutional Growth, edited by Hamid

H. Kazeroony, 19-38. New York, NY, USA: Business Expert Press, LLC; Webinar http://www.slideshare.net/rzeine/webinar-changing-organizational-culture-in-higher-

education. Original edition, 2011.

9


ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Rana Zeine: Assistant Professor, Basic Medical Sciences – Pathology, Saint James School

of Medicine, Kralendijk, Bonaire Caribbean Netherlands

Frank Palatnick: Consultant, International Agency for Economic Development, USA

Dr. Cheryl Boglarsky: Research Director, Human Synergistics International, Plymouth,

Michigan, USA

Patrick Blessinger: Founder, International Higher Education Teaching and Learning

Association, New York, USA

Dr. Brad Herrick: Professor, University of Texas, USA

Dr. Michael Hamlet: Professor, Keller Graduate School of Management at DeVry College of

New York, USA

10

Management Education: An International Journal is one of four thematically focused journals in the collection of journals that support The Organization knowledge community—its journals, book series, conference and online community.

The journal explores the dimensions of learning to lead in organizations that manage their knowledge resources effectively, have developed highly productive cultures and negotiate change effectively.

As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this journal invites case studies that take the form of presentations of management practice—including documentation of organizational practices and exegeses analyzing the effects of those practices.

Management Education: An International Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN 2327-8005