- 2015-03-09 (x)
- Aversano, Nina (x)
- Drugovich, Margaret L. (x)
- Search results
Search results
Show moreThis research explored the ways in which the contemporary notion of transformational leadership might help to extend the neoinstitutional approach to organizational change and politics. The role of leadership in converting deeply taken-for-granted, change-impeding structures and practices, such as shared governance, into ones that facilitate organizational adaptation in the highly institutionalized field of liberal arts colleges, was explored.The original research model accounted for institutional forces in which leadership styles (transactional and transformational) might variously reconfigure the effect of these forces on innovation and change. It was hypothesized that the president’s leadership style would impact institutional outcomes such as financial viability, indices of quality, and curricular innovation by its effect on in-place consensus structures. It was further hypothesized that the effect of leadership on these outcomes would be moderated by the level of organizational trust, the level of job satisfaction, and budget stability. Results indicate that transformational leadership style does mediate predict change in these highly legitimized institutions, providing the means for converting these taken-for-granted structures into vehicles of change. In addition, presidents and faculty hold notably different views on the role of consensus-making structures in the change process and the impact of leadership on these relationships. Standing committee work predicts change according to faculty leaders, and is facilitated by transformational leadership in the president. Among presidents, adhoc committee work predicts program change directly. These f Neoinstitutional research has produced a considerable number of studies in response to criticisms regarding its over-emphasis on stability and uniformity in organizations and organizational fields (e.g., Mezias, 1990; Brint & Karabel 1991; DiMaggio, 1991; Oliver 1991, 1992; Borum & Westenholz, 1995; Beckert 1999; Scott et. al., 2000; Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings, 2002). These studies constitute a successful effort to integrate into new institutionalism various dynamics that were central to ‘old institutionalism,’ such as interests, power, and politics (Scott 1995, 2001). However, few scholars have considered the implications of the potential disjuncture between the two institutionalisms in terms of level of analysis. Whereas most neoinstitutional studies examine processes at the inter-organizational level (notable exceptions include Ritti & Silver, 1986; Covalevski & Dirsmith, 1988; Goodrick & Salancik, 1996), old institutionalism focused on intra-organizational processes in explaining politics and change. For instance, Selznick’s work on goal displacement and organizational transformation at the Bolshevik party (1952) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (1949) and Barnard’s (1938) work on the societal responsibilities of corporate executives placed specific emphasis on the ways in which power and politics inside the organization mediated the effects of the external environment on these organizations. Distinctively, such studies articulated intra-organizational processes in terms of leadership dynamics. As outlined by Selznick (1957), the common thread was a focus on how leaders aligned internal arrangements with external pressures and opportunities towards their own and/or their organization’s benefit. In the new institutionalism, views on taken-for-granted practices can be paradoxical. While these practices are viewed as sources of organizational legitimacy (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio & Powell 1983) necessary for survival, they are also considered obstacles to successful adaptation to new pressures and circumstances (e.g., Hinings & Greenwood 1988; D’Aunno, Sutton, & Price, 1991). The notion of transformational leadership may help overcome or perhaps ‘capitalize’ on this paradox. Leadership as a mediator of organization-environment interactions: preserving the organizational archetype. This research explored the way in which the contemporary notion of transformational leadership (Bass, Avolio, and Goodheim, 1987) helps to extend the neoinstitutional approach to organizational change and politics. Specifically, it explored the role of leadership in converting deeply taken for granted, change-impeding structures and practices into ones that facilitate organizational adaptation to market forces in the highly institutionalized field of liberal arts colleges. Transformational leaders possess the capability of drawing on prevailing structures and practices in ways that facilitate profound change in organizations. In the face of external pressures, they can reformulate organizational value commitments, realign competing interests and power differentials, and build significant capacity to bring about organizational innovations (Bass and Avolio, 1993; Avolio, Bass, and Jung, 1999). To use Anthony Giddens’ (1979, 1984) concepts, if structures are both enabling and constraining, their enabling features are likely to be more pronounced under transformational leadership. In the new institutionalism, views on taken for granted practices can be paradoxical. While these practices are viewed as sources of organizational legitimacy (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio & Powell 1983) necessary for survival, they are also considered obstacles to successful adaptation to new pressures and circumstances (e.g., Hinings & Greenwood 1988; D’Aunno, Sutton, & Price, 1991). The notion of transformational leadership may help overcome or perhaps ‘capitalize’ on this paradox. The work of Greenwood and Hinings (1996) provides a partial but useful parallel to this attempt to incorporate the notion of transformational leadership into the institutional frameworkapproach. Greenwood and Hinings (1996) These scholars explicitly pointed to the need to focus on intra-organizational dynamics as a means to bridge the new and old institutionalisms. Drawing on their earlier work on organizational archetypes (e.g., Greenwood & Hinings, 1993), they proposed a model that accounts for external market factors as well as internal organizational factors, such as values and power relations, to explain organizational change. They argued that profound changes in an organization’s basic archetype result from the interaction between external pressures and internal dynamics. The work of Greenwood and Hinings (1996) provides a partial but useful parallel to this attempt to incorporate the notion of transformational leadership into the institutional approach. As did the adherents to the old institutionalism, this research extends their perspective that leadership may mediate the organization-environment interaction in ways that result in innovation without abandoning the basic organizational archetype. In the face of external pressures, transformational leaders can reformulate organizational value commitments, realign competing interests and power differentials, and build significant capacity, drawing on prevailing structures and practices, to bring about organizational innovations (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). If structures are both enabling and constraining (Giddens, 1979; 1984), their enabling features are likely to be more pronounced under transformational leadership. The way in which transformational leadership (Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987) acts to convert deeply imbedded, taken for granted, change-impeding structures and practices into ones that facilitate organizational adaptation to market forces in the highly institutionalized field of liberal arts colleges is the focus of this study. This research extends this perspective, as did the adherents to the old institutionalism, that leadership may mediate the organization-environment interaction in ways that result in innovation that need not require the abandonment of the basic organizational archetype.
Doctorate of Management Programs
Show less
Show moreTuition-dependent, private postsecondary institutions need a continuous and predictable stream of students to assure their fiscal viability. Liberal arts colleges, like all postsecondary education institutions, are vying for student s in an increasingly competitive marketplace. As premium price leaders, many liberal arts institutions have been forced to make deep cuts to their ‘sticker price’ in the form of tuition discounts in order to compete with one another as well as with state institutions that increasingly espouse their ability to simulate the small college experience. However, discounting, though perhaps popular and even necessary, cannot be a long-term solution. According to Lovett, “Most [all but the wealthiest] priva te institutions have reached, or are about to reach, their ‘price elasticity threshold’, and will, like state institutions, find that they worry about lowered academic quality and diminished access if they cannot continue to raise tuition.” Lovett adds what many education insiders know: “Most private colleges and universities do not have the luxury of large applicant pools or large endowments.” According to McPherson and Shapiro, liberal arts colleges in the U.S. “have endured a steady shrinkage of their traditional market”... “fewer than 250,000 students out of more than 14 million experience education in a small residential college without graduate students.”
Doctorate of Management Programs
Show less