A Review on Organizational Culture and Organizational Communication in Universities

Yıl 2007, Cilt: 50 Sayı: 50, 247 - 268, 01.01.2007

Sıdıka Gizir

Öz

Summary The 1980s witnessed a surge in popularity to examine universities as institutions of higher education as researchers who study organizations became increasingly aware of the vital role of universities has played in any development program and in the general organization of modern society (Aypay, 2003; Cabal, 1993). Some of researchers focused on the functioning of universities, the nature of universities as organizations, while some focused on the invisible organizational structure of universities (organizational culture and climate), and still some others focused on leadership, decision making, coordination, communication, and organizational change (Brown II, 2000). In the 1980s, there was also great interest in understanding and managing culture in organizations because organizational researchers perceived it as a concept that could explain many organizational phenomena. With the awareness of the symbolic aspects or invisible structure of organizations have come calls for a cultural perspective on organizations (Smircich, 1983). Inevitably, it has been recognized that the concept of organizational culture is a critical element in the study of higher education institutions because the studies focusing on organizational culture in higher education institutions demonstrated that this concept can affect student life, faculty life, curriculum, administration, administrative and organizational themes and processes, such as leadership, decision making, motivation, job satisfaction, effectiveness, and organizational communication (Dill, 2000; Masland, 2000; Peterson & Spencer, 2000). Among some others, organizational communication is not only be affected by organizational culture, it also affects culture in organizations. In his study focusing on how culture influences communication, Gudykunst (1997) states that culture and communication reciprocally influence each other. Moreover, Gizir and Şimşek (2005) propose that like other organizations, communication plays a vital role in universities as complex organizations by taking a central position in organizational action, control, coordination and organizational survival, and also by increasing agreement on organizational ideas, norms, values, behaviors, and goals. By considering the aforementioned developments, the purpose of this study is to propose a theoretical background for examining universities from the cultural perspective. With this aim, this study tries to call attention of researchers to universities as heterogonous entities with many different sub-cultures by stressing the central position of culture in the organizational analysis of universities. Moreover, in this study, it is emphasized that faculty members have academic cultures which are influenced from the interaction among the culture of academic profession, disciplinary culture and the culture of scientific paradigm. In addition, the importance of organizational communication through an examination of universities from the cultural perspective is stressed. University and Organizational Culture Although the conceptual confusion and lack of a well-developed framework for understanding organizational culture and the major interest and research activity related to organizational culture has occurred outside of higher education institutions, interest within is also expending (Valimaa, 1998; Peterson & Spencer, 1993; Tierney, 1988). However, the distinctive nature and unique characteristics of higher education institutions and also complex and elusive nature of the concept of organizational culture limit to study these organizations comprehensively and comparatively. In spite of limitations, Turner et al. (2002) state that the use of concepts related with organizational culture and perspectives has become increasingly popular as a means of describing various issues and concerns in higher education. From the cultural perspective, the university does not form one-voiced homogeneous whole but a heterogonous entity with many different small parts. Universities are not monolithic entities, because they are host to various subgroups with different priorities, traditions, artifacts and values (Kuh and Witt; 2000; Tierney, 1988). Academic Culture Alvesson (1993) claims that universities consist of multiple configurations which are dynamic in character and the lived reality in one department quite different from that in another. Research on the internal life of the university has shown that disciplines in a university differ from each other both cognitively and socially. Besides the common cognitive basis, disciplines have their own social and cultural characteristics: norms, values, modes of interaction, life-style, pedagogical and ethical codes, etc. (Becher, 1994; Biglan, 1973; Clark, 1983; Hearn & Anderson, 2002; Huber, 1992; Moses, 1990; Trowler & Knight, 2000; Ylijoki, 2000). In addition to the disciplinary culture, the culture of academic profession and the culture of scientific paradigm influence the cultures of faculty members (Toma, 1997). Organizational Culture and Organizational Communication Cultures emerge and are sustained by the communication processes among the all employees, not just the conscious persuasive strategies of upper management as frequently stated in the culture literature (Kowalski, 2000; Toma, 1997). It can be said that cultures do not exist separately from the people communicating each other. In addition, whether strong or weak, culture has a powerful influence throughout an organization. It affects practically everything from who gets promoted and what decisions are made to how employees dress and what sports they play. Because of this impact, culture is also has a major effect on the success of the organization. Although the existence of variations in the definition of this term, there is an obvious reference to communication. Organizational Communication and University Communication can be defined as a process through which organizational members express their collective inclination to coordinate beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes in organizations, and it also gives meaning to work and forges perceptions of reality (Kowalski, 2000). Hunt, Tourish ve Hargie (2000) state that as with most organization, education establishments engage a wide variety of communication to realize the basic tasks, teaching, research and service. Hovewer, when compared with business organizations, university organizations are different with respect to their structure of authority, mission, performance appraisals, and type of specialization regarding work activities, employees, and hierarchy line (Gizir & Simsek, 2005; Baldridge et al., 2000; Birnbaum, 1988; Blau, 1973; Besse, 1973). These differences make communication process in an academic context more complex. Moreover, universities are labor intensive, that is, the staff of a higher education institution is a significant component having major role to play in achieving the objectives of the institution (Rowley, 1996). Specifically, among the participants or elements of a university, faculty members having special status as part of an academic department, and of faculty cannot be passive recipients of management communication. Faculty members are the vital part of the entire university communication network. They have their own histories and trajectories, their own habits and practices, named as cultures, and also their unique communication process. Conclusion Financial cutbacks, decreasing public spending, new accountability measures, enrollment uncertainties, calls for broader range of services to society, economic recession, and confusion about academic goals, which are among the challenges facing higher education institutions, have combined to encourage the reorganization of these institutions in the world (Altbach, 1995; Jacob & Hellström, 2003). The restructuring of higher education has generated various critical debates on almost all aspects of universities, such as collegial tradition, departmental structure, organizational behavior, academic culture, climate, knowledge, ethics, the academic profession and roles of academics, etc. (Adams, 1998; Altbach, 1995; Aypay, 2006; Barnett, 1993; Edwards, 1999; Jacob & Hellström, 2003; Kerr, 1994; Marginson, 2000; Tapper & Palfreyman, 1998). The effect and acceleration of change in the higher education varied in nature, provenance and intensity, but all impact on academic staff and their perception about their worklife and workplace in which communication takes place. Communication can not be seen as simply the transfer of information which leads to action.

Anahtar Kelimeler

organizational culture , academic culture , organizational communication

Üniversitelerde Örgüt Kültürü ve Örgüt-İçi İletişim Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması

Öz

Son yıllarda, örgüt ve yönetim konusunda çalışan araştırmacılar, birçok örgütsel tema ve sürecin açıklanmasında kültürel perspektiften yararlanmanın önemi konusunda uzlaşı sağlamışlardır. Buna karşın, özellikle ülkemizde, üniversitelerin örgütsel analizine yönelik kültürel bir bakış açısı geliştirilmesi oldukça yenidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, üniversitelerin kültürel perspektiften yararlanılarak incelenmesine yönelik kuramsal bir temel oluşturmaktır. Bu amaçla, diğer örgütlerle karşılaştırıldığında farklı ve kendine özgü karmaşık bir yapıya sahip olan üniversitelerin, birçok alt kültürü bünyesinde barındıran ve heterojen bir yapıya sahip olan örgütler olduklarına dikkat çekilmektedir. Bunun yanısıra, öğretim ve bilimsel araştırma gibi üniversitelerin en temel işlevlerini gerçekleştiren öğretim elemanlarının, örgüt ve toplumsal kültürün yanısıra akademisyenlik mesleğine ait kültür, akademik disiplinlerine ait kültür ve sahip oldukları bilimsel paradigmalara ait kültürlerin etkileşiminden oluşan bir akademik kültüre sahip oldukları vurgulanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, ayrıca, örgüt kültürü ve örgüt örgüt-içi iletişim arasındaki karşılıklı etkileşim dikkate alınarak, üniversitelerin kültürel perspektiften incelenmesinde örgüt-içi iletişim sürecinin yeri ve önemi üzerinde durulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

örgüt kültürü , akademik kültür , örgüt-içi iletişim.

Kaynakça

• Adams, D. (1998). Examining the fabric of academic life: An analysis of three decades of research on the perceptions of Australian academics about their roles. Higher Education, 36, 421–435.
• Altbach, P. G. (1995). Problems and possibilities: The US academic profession. Studies in Higher Education, 20(1), 27–45.
• Alvesson, M. (1993). Cultural perspectives on organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge.
• Alvesson, M. & Billing, Y. D. (1997). Understanding gender and organizations. London: Sage.
• Aypay, A. (2003). Yükseköğretimin yeniden yapılandırılması: Sosyo-ekonomik ve politik çevrelerin üniversitede kurumsal adaptasyona etkisi. Eğitim Yönetimi, 34, 194–213.
• Aypay, A. (2006). Üniversitelerde akademik etkinlik ve örgütsel davranış. Eğitim Yönetimi, 46, 175–198.
• Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G. P., & Riley, G. L. (2000). Alternative models of governance in higher education. İçinde Brown II, M. C. (Edt.). Organization and governance in higher education (5. Baskı). ASHE Reader Series. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
• Barnett, R. (1993). Knowledge, higher education and society: A postmodern problem. Oxford Review of Education, 19: 33–47.
• Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education: 19 (2), 151 – 162.
• Becher, T. & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2.Baskı). Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
• Bergquist, W. H. (1992). The four cultures of academy: Insights and strategies for improving leadership in collegiate organizations. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
• Besse, R. M. (1973). A comparison of the university with the corporation. Içinde Perkins, J. A. The university as an organization. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.
• Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: The Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Blau, P. M. (1973). The organization of academic work. New York: John Willey and Sons.
• Bolat, S. (1996). Eğitim örgütlerinde iletişim: H. Ü. Eğitim Fakültesi uygulaması. H. Ü. Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12, 75–80.
• Book, C. L., Albrecht, T. L., Atkin, C., Bettinghaus, E. P., & Donohue, W.A. (1980). Human communication: Principles, contexts, and skills. NewYork: St. Martin's Press.
• Bormann, E. G. (1983). Sembolic convergence: Organizational communication and culture. İçinde Putnam, L. L. ve Pacanaowski, M. E. (Edt.). Communications and Organizations: An interpretive Approach. Newbury Park: Sage.
• Brown II, M. C. (2000). Organization and governance in higher education. 5th Ed. ASHE Reader Series. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
• Büyükbeşe, T. & Bakan, İ. (2004). Örgütsel iletişim ile iş tatmini unsurları arasındaki ilişkiler: Akademik örgütler için bir alan araştırması. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 7, 1-30.
• Cabal, A. B. (1993). The University as an institution today: Topics for reflection. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
• Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross- cultural perspective. London: University of California Press.
• Clark, B. R. (2000). Faculty organization and authority. İçinde Brown II, M. C. (Edt.). Organization and governance in higher education (5. Baskı). ASHE Reader Series. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
• Cohen, C. (1996). Computer mediated communication and publication productivity among faculty.Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 6(2/3), 41–63.
• Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Massachusetts: Adison-Wesley.
• Deal, T. E & Peterson, K. D. (1991). The principal’s role in shaping school culture. Washington: U.S. Department of Education.
• Dill, D. D. (2000). The nature of administrative behavior in higher education. İçinde Brown II, M. C. (Edt.). Organization and governance in higher education (5. Baskı). ASHE Reader Series. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
• Dugan, K. W. (1989). Ability and effort attributions: Do they affect how managers communicate performance feedback information? Academy of Management Journal, 32, 87–114.
• Edwards, R. (1999). How does it fit into the university reform agenda. Change, 31(5), 16–28.
• Eisenberg, E. M. ve Riley, P. (2000). Organizational culture. İçinde Jablin, F. M. ve Putnam, L. L. (Edt.). The new handbook of organizational communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Gaff, J. G. & Wilson, R. C. (1988). Faculty cultures and interdisciplinary studies. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 186–201.
• Gagliardi, P. (1986). The creation and change of organizational cultures: A conceptual framework. Organizational Studies, 7/2: 117–134.
• Gizir, S. (1999). Communication in an academic context: The case of the five largest departments in the Middle East Technical University. Yayınlanmamış yüksek Llsans tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Gizir, S. (2003). Örgüt kültürü çalışmalarında yöntemsel yaklaşımlar. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 35, 374 – 397.
• Gizir, S. (2005). Assessment of factors negatively affecting communication process in Turkish State Universities. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Gizir, S. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Communication in an academic context. Higher Education, 50, 197 – 221.
• Gundykunst, W. B. (1997). Cultural variability in communication. Communication Research, 24, 327-342.
• Hearn, J. C. & Anderson, M. S. (2002). Conflict in academic departments: an analysis of disputes over faculty promotion and tenure. Research in Higher Education, 43 (5), 503–529.
• Huber, L. (1992). Editorial. European Journal of Education, 27(3), 193–199.
• Hunt, O., Tourish, D. & Hargie, O. D. W. (2000). The communication experiences of education managers: Identifying strengths, weaknesses and critical incidents. The International Journal of Educational Management, 1483), 120–129.
• Jacob, M. & Hellström, T. (2003). Organizing academy: New organizational forms and future of the university. Higher Education Quarterly, 57, 48–66.
• Peterson, M. W. & Spencer, M. G. (2000). Understanding academic culture and climate. İçinde Brown II, M. C. (Edt.). Organization and governance in higher education. 5th Ed. ASHE Reader Series. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
• Kerr, C. (1994). Knowledge ethics and the new academic culture. Change, 26, 8–16.
• Kondakçı, Y. (2000). Administrative process in academic context: An assessment of administrative problems in higher education at faculty level. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Kowalski, T. J. (2000). Cultural change paradigms and administrator communication. Contemporary Education, 71, 5–11.
• Kozlu, C. M. (1986). Kurumsal kültür. İstanbul: Defne Yayıncılık.
• Kuh, G. D. & Witt, E. J. (2000). Culture in American colleges and universities. İçinde Brown II, M. C. (Edt.). Organization and governance in higher education (5. Baskı). ASHE Reader Series. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
• Küskü, F. (2003). Employee satisfaction in higher education: The case of academic and administrative staff in Turkey. Career Development International, 8, 7, 347–356.
• Larson, J. R. (1986). Supervisors’ performance feedback to subordinates: The impact of subordinate performance valence and outcome dependence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 37, 391–408.
• Marginson, S. (2000). Rethinking academic work in the global era. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 22, 23–38.
• Masland, A. T. (2000). Organizational Culture in the study of higher education. İçinde Brown II, M. C. (Edt.). Organization and governance in higher education (5. Baskı). ASHE Reader Series. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
• Meyerson, D. & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of the different views”. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 623-647.
• Millett, J. D. (1968). Decision making and administration in higher education. Ohio: The Kent State University Press.
• Moses, I. (1990). Teaching, research and scholarship in different disciplines. Higher Education, 19, 351–375.
• Peterson, M. W. & Spencer, M. G. (1993). Qualitative and quantitative approaches to academic culture: Do they tell us the same thing?. Içinde Smart, J. C. (Ed). Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. Vol. IX. New York: Agothon Press.
• Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570-580.
• Phillips, N. ve Brown, J. L. (1993). Analyzing communication in and around organizations: A critical hermeneutic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1547-1576.
• Reilly, B. J. & DiAngelo, J. A. (1990). Communication: A cultural system of meaning and value. Human Relations, 43(2), 129-140.
• Rowley, J. (1996). Motivation and academic staff in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 4 (3), 11–16.
• Schein, E. H. (1991). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Sims, H. P. & Manz, C. C. (1984). Observing leader lerbal behavior: Toward reciprocal determinism in Leadership Theory”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 222–232.
• Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339–358.
• Smircich, L. & Calas, M. B. (1989). Organizational culture: A critical assessment. İçinde Jablin, F. M., Putnam, L. L., Roberts, K. H. & Porter, L. W. (Eds). Handbook of organizational communication. New York: Sage Publications.
• Straus, S. G. & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87–97.
• Şimşek, H. (1999). Turkish higher education system in the 1990s. Mediterranean journal of Educational Sciences, 4(2), 133–153.
• Şimsek, H. & Aytemiz, D. (1998). Anomaly-based change in higher education: The case of a large, Turkish public university. Higher Education, 36, 155– 179.
• Şişman, M. (2002). Örgüler ve kültürler. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
• Tapper, T. & Palfreymen, D. (1998). Continuity and change in the collegial tradition. Higher Education Quarterly, 52, 142–161.
• Tierney, W. G. (1992). Cultural leadership and the search for community. Liberal Education, 78, 16–22.
• Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining essentials. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 2–21.
• Tjosvold, D. & McNeilly, L. T. (1988). Innovation through communication in an educational bureaucracy. Communication Research, 15, 569–581.
• Trevino, L. K., Lengel, R. H. & Daft, R. L. (1987). Media symbolism, media richness, and media choice in organizations. Communication Research, 14, 553–574.
• Thornhill, A., Lewis, P. & Saunders, M. N. K. (1996). The role of employee communication in achieving commitment and quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 4(1), 12–20.
• Trowler, P. & Knight, P. T. (2000). Coming know in higher education: Theorising faculty entry to new work contexts. Higher Education Research and Development, 19, 27–42.
• Toma, J. D. (1997). Alternative inquiry paradigms, faculty cultures, and the definition of academic lives. The Journal of Higher Education, 68, 679–705.
• Turner, J. L., Miller, M. & Kernan, C. M. (2002). Disciplinary cultures and graduate education. Emergences, 12(1), 47–70.
• Valimaa, J. (1998). Culture and identity in higher education research. Higher Education, 36, 119–138.
• Ylijoki, O. (2000). Disciplinary cultures and the moral order of studying – A case-study of four Finish university departments. Higher Education, 39, 339– 362.