Organizational Image Perceptions of the University by Undergraduate Students of School of Education

Year 2006, Volume: 47 Issue: 47, 343 - 365, 01.08.2006

Yusuf Cerit

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to describe organizational image perceptions of undergraduate students for the university. Study group were 955 undergraduate students in School of Education at Abant Izzet Baysal University. Data were collected by “organizational image questionnaire” developed by researcher. Factor analysis produced a three factor structure and factors were described as academic environment, physical and social environment, and societal perception. Differences in organizational image perceptions by academic department and years were analyzed by using one-way ANOVA and by gender employing t-test. Results indicated a moderate level of positive organizational image perception. Organizational image perceptions showed significant differences by academic departments for all factors. Significant differences were also observed for academic environment, physical and social environment by years of academic study, but no difference was observed for societal perception. Organizational image perceptions did not show any significant differences by gender. Summary Developing a positive organizational image is a vital function for an organization in a competitive environment. Organizational image refers to whole set of values, beliefs, attitudes, feelings, value judgments and behaviors about an organization (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Kotler and Andreasen, 1996; Lemmink, Schuijf and Streukens, 2003). Degree or level of positive image determines, to a great extend, level of competitive advantage for organizations. Building and maintaining a high level of positive image plays a significant role in attracting more and better customers (Flavian, Guinaliu and Torres, 2005). A positive image is not only a facilitator for creating an increasing demand for products or services produced by an organization, but also a catalyser for improving customer satisfaction and positive attitudes towards the organization and its products or services (Nguyen and Leblanc, 200) as well as a high level of customer loyalty (Si and Hitit, 2003). Therefore, organizations or firms devote considerable amount of resources and time for improving their organizational image (Fatt, Wei, Yuen and Suan, 2000). Developments in educational management and policies with increased competitive practices, privatization and development of market economies in education coupled with effects of globalization have been forcing researchers and management to focus on building and maintaining a positive organizational image (Oplatka, Foskett and Hemsley-Brown, 2002; Glatter, Hirsch and Watson, 2004; Jackson and Bissel, 2005; Chen and Sönmez, 2005). Although nature of business in education is considerably different from business in corporate sectors, competition for sustainability of better and more customers is a common characteristic. Even for those institutions of higher education fully funded by public resources, attracting better qualified students at national level, as well as from beyond the national borders has been considered as an important indicator of educational quality. Despite the fact that only about 10% of students are placed into an undergraduate program (excluding two year vocational programs and Open University programs) in Turkey, there has been a fierce competition among universities to attract better qualified students (TED, 2005). Perceptions of students about organizational image of their universities regarding opportunities and services provided by the university have been increasingly considered as an element that must be managed, monitored and assessed on a continuous basis (Wright and O'neill, 2002). Therefore, this study focuses on describing organizational image perceptions of undergraduate students for the university at Abant İzzet Baysal University. Differences in organizational image perceptions of undergraduate students by academic department, years in undergraduate study and gender are examined. Method Study group were 955 undergraduate students in School of Education at Abant Izzet Baysal University. Researcher intended to draw a random sample from among all students enrolled in undergraduate programs at the university, but declined receive permission for research. This sets a limitation for this study that data is limited with undergraduate students in School of Education. Data were collected by “organizational image questionnaire” developed by researcher. Factor analysis with varimax rotation produced a three factor structure and factors were described as academic environment, physical and social environment, and societal perception. Three items were loaded to all three factors with minimal differences in factor loadings and therefore were removed from initial form. Seven items were loaded to the first factor named academic environment, five items were loaded to the each of the second factor named physical and social environment and the third factor defined as societal perception with minimum factor loading of .45. Internal consistency of factors was assessed by using Cronbach's alpha coefficient and alpha was 0.8542 for academic environment, 0.8128 for physical and social environment, and 0.7604 for societal perception. These three factors explained 53.91% of the total variance for the questionnaire. Differences in organizational image perceptions by academic department and years were analyzed by using one-way ANOVA and by gender employing t-test. Results and Discussion Results indicated a moderate to high level of positive organizational image perceptions of students for all three dimensions of organizational image. However, organizational image perceptions showed significant differences by academic departments for all three factors. Students in Foreign Language Teaching department reported significantly higher perception of organizational image compared to other departments, followed by Special Education department. These results suggest that quality and nature of services and experiences of students varies among departments. Significant differences were also observed for academic environment, physical and social environment by years of academic study, but no difference was observed for societal perception. Students' perceptions of organizational image showed a general tendency to decline from first year into fourth year during their undergraduate studies. This suggests that the university is not able to keep the level of organization image at least at first year of undergraduate study. These may be interpreted as unmet expectations and dissatisfactions with services and experiences during the study, suggesting that the university is in need of a well articulated and developed strategy for creating and maintaining a more positive image. Organizational image perceptions did not show any significant differences by gender.

Keywords

organizational image , organizational image at universities , image management.

Eğitim Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Üniversitenin Örgütsel İmaj Düzeyine İlişkin Algıları

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, öğrenci görüşlerine dayalı olarak üniversitenin örgütsel imaj düzeyini belirlemektir. Çalışma grubu 2005-2006 öğretim yılında Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesinde okuyan 955 öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Çalışmada veriler araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen örgütsel imaj ölçeği ile elde edilmiştir. Hazırlanan ölçeğe faktör analizi uygulanarak akademik çevre, fiziksel ve sosyal çevre ve toplumsal algılanma olarak adlandırılan üç faktörlü bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde aritmetik ortalama, standart sapma, t-testi ve tek yönlü varyans analizi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma bulguları öğrencilerin üniversitenin orta düzeyde olumlu bir imaja sahip olduğunun göstermiştir. Öğrencilerin örgütsel imaj algıları bölümlere göre farklılık göstermiş ancak cinsiyet değişkenine göre anlamlı farklılık görülmemiştir. Akademik çevre, fiziksel ve sosyal çevre boyutlarında öğrencilerin örgütsel imaj algıları sınıf değişkenine göre anlamlı düzeyde farklılık göstermiş, ancak toplumsal algılanma boyutunda farklılık görülmemiştir.

Keywords

rgütsel imaj , üniversitelerde örgütsel imaj , imaj yönetimi

References

• Arpan, L.M., Roney, A.A. ve Zivnuska, S. (2003). A cognitive approach to understanding university image. Communications: An International Journal, 8 (2), 97-113.
• Barich, H. ve Kotler, P. (1991). A framework for marketing image management. Sloan Management Review, 32 (2), 94-104.
• Bell, L. ve Rowley, A. (2002). The Impact of Educational Policy on Headship in Primary Schools in England, 1994-2001. Journal of Educational Administration, 40 (3), 195-210.
• Bromley, D.B. (2001) Relationship between personal and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing, 35 (3/4), 316-334.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2003). Veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: PegemA yayıncılık.
• Chen, Y. ve Sönmez, T. (2005). “School Choice: An Experimental Study”, Journal of Economic Theory, ss. 1-30.
• Christensen, L.T. ve Askegaard, S. (2001). Corporate identity and corporate image revisited – a semiotics perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 35 (3/4), 292-315.
• Dick, A. ve Basu, K. (1994) Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (2), 99-113.
• Fatt, J.P.T., Wei, M., Yuen, S. Ve Suan, W. (2000). Enhancing corporate image in organisations. Management Research News, 23 (7), 28-54.
• Flavian, C., Guinaliu, M. ve Torres, E. (2005). The influence of corporate image on consumer trust. Internet Research, 15 (4), 447-470.
• Glatter, R., Hirsch, D. ve Watson, S. (2004). School choice and diversity international perspectives a decade on. International Studies of Educational Administration, 32 (1), 50-71.
• Gray, E.R. ve Balmer, J.M. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long Range Planning, 31 (5), 695-702.
• Güzelcik, E. (1999). Küreselleşme ve işletmelerde değişen kurum imajı. İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık.
• Gwinner, K. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship. International Marketing Review, 14 (3), 145-158.
• Harvey, J. Ve Busher, H. (1996). Marketing schools and consumer choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 10 (4), ss. 26-32.
• Hatch, M.J. ve Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31 (5), 356-365.
• Ivy, J. (2001) Higher education institution image: a correspondence analysis approach. The international Journal of Educational Management, 15 (6), 276- 282.
• Jackson, C. ve Bissel, M. (2005). Gender and school choice: factors influencing parents when choosing single-sex or co-educational independent schools for their children. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35 (2), 195-211.
• Kazoleas, D., Kim, Y., ve Maffitt, M.A. (2001). Institutional image: a case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6 (4), 205-216.
• Kotler, P. ve Andreasen, A.R. (1996). Positioning the organisation: strategic marketig for non profit organisation. Toronto: Prentice-Hall.
• Landrum, R.E., Turrisi, R. ve Harless, C. (1998) University image: the benefits of assessment and modeling. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9 (1), 53-68.
• Lemmimk, J., Schuijf, A. ve Streukens, S. (2003). The role of corporate image and company employment image in explaining application intentions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24 (1), 1-15.
• Markwick, N. ve Fill, C. (1997) Towards a framework for managing corporate identity. European Journal of Marketing, 31 (5), 396-409.
• Mazzarol, T. (1998). Critical success factors for international education marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 12 (4), 163- 175.
• Melewar, T.C. ve Akel, S. (2005). The role of corporate identity in the higher education sector. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10 (1), 41-57.
• Moizer, P., Benau, M.A.G., Humphrey, C. Ve Martinez, A.V. (2004). The corporate image of auditors in a developing audit market within the EU: the case of Spain. European Accounting Review, 13 (3), 561-582.
• Mok, K. H. (2005). Decentralization and marketization of education in Singapore. Journal of Educational Administration, 41 (4), 348-366.
• Nguyen, N. ve Leblanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students’ retention decisions. The international journal of educational management,15(6), 303-311.
• Nguyen, N. ve Leblanc, G. (2002). Contact personel, physical environment and the perceived corporate image of intangible services by new clients. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13 (3), 242-262.
• Okay, A. (2000). Kurum kimliği. Ankara: MediaCat Yayınları.
• Oplatka, I. ve Hemsley-Brown, J. (2004). The research on school marketing. Journal of Educational Administration, 42 (3), 375-400.
• Oplatka, I., Foskett, N. ve Hemsley-Brown, J. (2002). Educational marketisation and the head’s psychological well-being: a speculative conceptualisation. British Journal of Educational Studies, 50 (4), 419-441.
• Palacio, A.B., Meneses, G.D. ve Perez, P.J. (2002). The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40 (5), 486-505.
• Parameswaran, R. ve Glowacka, A.E. (1995) University image: an information processing perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 6(2), 41- 56.
• Porter, S.S.ve Claycomb, C. (1997). The influence of brand recognition on retail store image. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16 (6), 373-387.
• Prahalad, C.K. ve Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68 (3), 79-81.
• Riordan, C., Gatewood, R.D. ve Bill, J.B. (1997). Corporate image: employee reactions and implications for managing corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 16 (4), 401-412.
• Ritzen, J. M., Dommelen, J. ve Vijlder, F. J. (1997). School finance and school choice in the Netherlands. Economics of Education Review, 16 (3), 329-335.
• Saracel, N., Özkara, B., Karakaş, M., Yelken, R., Vatandaş, C., Bayram, K., Alver, K. ve Koçak, H. (2001). Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi’nin örgütsel imajı: Afyon halkının üniversiteyi algılaması tutum ve beklentilerine ilişkin araştırma. Afyon: Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Si, S. X. ve Hitit, M.A. (2003). A study of organizational image resulting from international joint ventures in transitional economies. Journal of Business Research, 1-8.
• TED (2005). Türkiye’de üniversiteye giriş sistemi araştırması ve çözüm önerileri. Ankara: Türk Eğitim Derneği yayınları.
• Theus, K.T. (1993) Academic reputations: the process of formation and decay. Public Relations Review, 19 (3), 277-291.
• Torlak, Ö. (2001) Eğitim hizmetleri pazarlaması açısından üniversite öğrencilerinin hizmet kalitesini algılamalarının önemi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 7 (27), 399-416.
• Treadwell, D.F. ve Harrison, T.M. (1994). Conceptualizing and assessing organizational image: model images, commitment and communication. Communication Monograhs, 61, 63-85.
• Wright, C. Ve O’neill, M. (2002). Service quality evaluation in the higher education sector: an empirical investigation of students’perceptions. Higher Education Research & Development, 21 (1), 23-39.