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

1. 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

2. Customer Service Focus
The Extent to which Members Throughout
an Organization Understand that
They Have a Responsibility to
Identify and Satisfy the Needs
of Customers and Clients
Cooke, R.A. 1997. Organizational Effectiveness Inventory®. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics

3. Articulation of Mission
The Extent to which the Organizational
Mission and Philosophy Are
• Clearly Defined
• Understood
• Communicated and Widely-Shared
• Exemplified by Members
• Actions Illustrate Priorities
Cooke, R.A. 1997. Organizational Effectiveness Inventory®. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics

4. Customer Service Focus & Articulation of Mission
Behavioral
Norms
CURRENT
CULTURE
Desired
Values
IDEAL
CULTURE
MISSION
&
PHILOSOPHY
Systems
Structures,
Technology,
Skills &
Qualities
CAUSAL
FACTORS
Individual,
Group &
Organizational
OUTCOMES
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.
T
H
E
O
R
E
T
I
C
A
L
M
O
D
E
L
Evolve
EFFECTIVENESS
B ‘Best Fit’

5. Objective
To Assess Levels of
1. CUSTOMER SERVICE FOCUS
2. ARTICULATION of MISSION
in Higher Education Institutions

6. Higher Education Customers Are Stakeholders:
Consider the Universe of Needs
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)

7. Students As Clients of Higher Education
• 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)

8. Governments 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)

9. Survey Methods: Organizational
Effectiveness Inventory (OEI®)
• 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
Cooke, R.A. 1997. Organizational Effectiveness Inventory®. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics
http://www.humansynergistics.com

10. Home Countries of Institutional Affiliations of
52 Higher Education Professionals Surveyed
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
USA
India
UK
Australia
France
Ethiopia
Egypt
Macedonia
Costa Rica
Jordan
Wales
New Zealand
Canada
Spain
Denmark
Greece
nd
Number of Respondents
North America
Europe
India
Australia
Latin America
Middle East
Africa

11. 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

12. 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 year
1 to 2 years
2 to 4 years
4 to 6 years
6 to 10 years
10 to 15 years
>15 years
nd
Education
Professional degree (Certificate)
Master’s degree
Doctorate degree
MD / PhD
JD
Other
D
E
M
O
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S

13. 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

14. Customer Service Focus
Faculty, Not-For-Profit, Male & Female Undesirable
Administrators & For-Profit More Desirable
n = 51
0 1 2 3 4 5
Historical Average
Median, 50th percentile
Total
Not-for-profit, Private
Not-for-profit, Public
For-profit, Private
For-profit, Public
Administrators
Faculty
Male
Female
Constructive Benchmark
n = 8
n = 29
n = 10
n = 4
n = 20
n = 25
n = 26
n = 24
*
* *
*
* *
Mean Score
± SE
p < .10
*
* * p < .05
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
&
P
h
i
l
o
s
o
p
h
y
One-way ANOVA

15. Customer Service Focus is Undesirable in
Higher Education Institutions
• 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)

16. Articulation of Mission
Not-For-Profit Undesirable,
For-Profit Desirable
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
&
P
h
i
l
o
s
o
p
h
Constructive Benchmark
Mean Score y
± SE
p < .05
n = 52
n = 8
n = 30
0 1 2 3 4 5
Total
Not-for-profit, Private
Not-for-profit, Public
For-profit, Private
For-profit, Public
Administrators
Faculty
Male
Female
Historical Average
Median, 50th percentile
n = 10
n = 4
n = 20
n = 25
n = 26
n = 25
* *
* *
* *
* *
One-way ANOVA

17. Articulation of Mission is Undesirable in
Not-For-Profit Higher Education Institutions
• 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)

18. Discussion on Diagnosis in Higher Education
• 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)

19. Recommendations
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)

20. Acknowledgements Customer Service Focus and
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
Mission Articulation … in
Higher Education Institutions
Management Education: An International Journal, vol.13

21. Supplemental

22. Current Culture Ideal Culture OCI®
SUBGROUPS
NOT-FOR-PROFIT
FOR-PROFIT
N=34
N=24
N=17
N=12
CONSTRUCTIVE
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.

23. 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
Cynical
Receptive
Sustainability
Noncommittal
Self-Protecting
Volatility
Vulnerability
Confrontational
Withdraw
Research and development by Cooke & Lafferty. Copyright © by Human Synergistics International. All Rights Reserved.