Campus Systems

Running Head: CAMPUS SYSTEMS 1

Campus Systems

Richard N. Dettling

University of Phoenix

Campus Systems

There are varieties of higher education institutions in the United States. Institutions range from special focus institutions to community colleges, to doctoral-granting universities. Each institution has a different purpose, mission, goal, and objective, which intends to attract specific types of students and faculty. Since 1636, Harvard University has been delivering consistent superior academic performance (Harvard at a glance, 2011). Harvard University is the oldest private Ivy League university in the United States (Harvard at a glance, 2011). With 44 Nobel laureates, Harvard's prestige and endowment has made Harvard University one of the most influential universities in the world (Harvard at a glance, 2011). The institution's organizational structure additionally contributes to Harvard's success and causes it to stand out as among the best universities.

Description of Institute

As an institute, Harvard University is an open system, which is effected by and in turn affects the external environment (Birnbaum, 1988). The external environment does not just refer to students; it means much more, it refers to all the relevant forces that affect the institute outside its boundaries (Birnbaum, 1988). Open systems take inputs and transforms them into final products called outputs (Birnbaum, 1988). An institute is basically an input-transformation-output system (Birnbaum, 1988). Universities convert their inputs into outputs. Primary inputs for Harvard University would consist of students, books, supplies, professors, and buildings (Dressler, 1998). Additionally the inputs for Harvard are much more complex and may consist of ideas, tangible resources, or involvement with other institutions or systems (Birnbaum,1988). The transformation consists of the any medium used to transmit information to students; for instance, by lecture, exams, online learning, teaching research, and service (Birnbaum, 1988). The output, that is, Harvard's final product would be the educated person.

Institutional Organization

In order to transform students into educated persons, the institute needs to organize itself in such a way that it systematically contributes to the universities goals. The university needs to structure with a line of authority (Dressler, 1998). Lines of authority delineate reporting relationships and decision-making levels. Knowledge of reporting relationships is often called the bureaucratic system (Birnbaum,1988). The bureaucratic system according to Birnbaum (1988), "Is the expectation that these interactions will be influenced primarily by legitimate hierarchical relationships" (p. 114). A university's organizational chart illustrates authority, hierarchy, delegation, and decentralization. The chart provides a picture of the reporting structure (who reports to whom) and the various activities that are carried out by different departments and individuals (Bateman & Snell, 2009).

A university's organizational relationships between superiors and subordinates are demonstrated horizontally and vertically (Birnbaum, 1988). Horizontal differentiation in the university structure explores of departmentalization that creates different departments, functional groups, and divisions. Vertical differentiation explores authority within the university; such as, the board of trustees, the president, and all hierarchical levels (Bateman & Snell, 2009). How the university organizes itself is considered the most important factor in determining whether the university can adapt to external environment or complex technological changes (Birnbaum,1988; Bateman & Snell, 2009).

Harvard University is not a traditionally structured university, where different authority levels form an organizational pyramid. Harvard University is a dualistic bureaucratic system, which is typical of matrix organizations (Bateman & Snell, 2009). Instead of having a single line of authority, the president draws from each functional area. In Figure 1, for example, the dualistic structure originates at the highest level and continues throughout the university.

Figure 1:

(Harvard Organization Chart, 2001).

Like other university organizational structures, Harvard's structure has both strengths and weaknesses. The major potential advantage of Harvard's dualistic structure according to Bateman and Snell (2009) is the high degree of flexibility and adaptability, especially when trying to adapt to the external environment or complex technological changes. The potential shortcoming of the dualistic structure derives from the president having two reporting superiors, which can create confusion (Bateman & Snell, 2009). Unless steps are taken to overcome the confusion, the president must learn to be responsible and report to two superiors.

Administrative Model of Campus Governance

Larger universities are more difficult to coordinate and control. While size may create more areas that are functional by spreading productivity out over more departments, it also may create administrative difficulties that inhibit efficient performance (Birnbaum, 1988). At Harvard University, the administrative model of campus governance seeks to ensure that administrators understand legal relationships, information systems, financial aid, student services, standard operating procedures and much more (Birnbaum, 1988). This is because administrators who are highly trained and have access to information prefer autonomy in which the organizational structure can have fewer reporting levels in order to have a shared responsibility of governance (Bateman & Snell, 2009). The administrative model of campus governance gives authority to administrators to make decisions in order to reduce hierarchical layers. The belief is that fewer layers create a more efficient, fast acting, and cost effective bureaucratic system (Bateman & Snell, 2009).

Institutional and Organizational Constraints

Academic environments can be stable or turbulent, in that some institutions may continue with academic and organizational programs over time without making drastic changes, while others have to make drastic changes to constantly confront new and unexpected problems as enrollments suddenly decline, external agencies demand new and costly programs or reports, governmental agencies create new regulations and oversight. (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 43). Universities are constrained by their environment (Birnbaum, 1988). Internal constraints such as the universities' culture and its leadership influence the institution and organization's response to the external environment (Bateman and Snell, 2009, p.52). The external environment includes all relevant forces outside the organization's boundaries (Bateman and Snell, 2009). Distinguishing external constraints will highlight the influence on organizations and how organizations can influence their environments.

Today's environments are consistently changing, complex, dynamic and uncertain. Huge amounts of information flow from the external environment to the university (Bateman and Snell, 2009). Many of these factors are uncontrollable. These relevant forces include legal, political, economic, technological, demographic, and social and natural factors that generally affect all organizations (Bateman and Snell, 2009). Elements in the environment can range from favorable to unfavorable. Government policies, state regulations, accreditation, licensures, and local businesses and industries impose strategic constraints on the university but may also provide opportunities (Kun, 1991). At the same time, government intrusion can affect business opportunities through tax laws, economic policies, and international trade rulings. (Bateman and Snell, 2009).

Mission

The makeup of colleges and universities demand missions are broad enough to encompass diversity and support innovation, but also clear enough to ensure acceptable quality (Higher Learning Commission, 2010). The mission and official goals of the university are a starting point, because a mission statement will broadcast the university's desired image (Bateman and Snell, 2009). Universities should have a global or broad mission statement that is inclusive of its colleges and departments. Departments and colleges of the university should have a more formal mission statement. Harvard University for instance, does not have a university-wide mission statement (Mission statement - Harvard University, 2010). Harvard's business school does however, "We educate leaders who make a difference in the world" (Our Mission - Harvard Business School, 2010, para. 2), albeit vague and not specific enough. On the other hand, the Graduate School of Education has a detailed mission, "To prepare leaders in education and to generate knowledge to improve student opportunity, achievement, and success" (About the Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2010, para. 1), which gives .

As universities diversify into fragmented academic departments, these departmental mission statements become a source of stress and conflict rather than integration (Birnbaum, 1988). According to Bateman and Snell (2009), an organization's mission should have relevance and consistency. "Each goal should contribute to the organization's overall mission while being consistent with its values" (Bateman & Snell, 2009, p. 133). In this sense a university would be a variation of the traditional, hierarchical organization, within which all campus and academic operations are performed. In contrast, Harvard University is a collection of independent, mostly single departments that collaborate with each other to produce a final product; the educated person. The combination of the academic departments' independent mission statements produces an overall conceptual synthesis rather than emulating a holistic mission (Birnbaum, 1988). Although the combination of these various missions provide the university its identity, the university still needs to figure out whether the statements truly reflect the goals of the university. Goals are the targets or ends the academic department wants to reach (Bateman & Snell, 2009). The different departmental missions may create a disagreement of goals, where on the one hand a college measures itself by the amount of students who obtain jobs, another measures itself by students who graduate, or who are satisfied, another measures itself by the percentage who participate in civic activities (Birnbaum, 1988).

Governance

Harvard University has a dual board of trustees. The Harvard Corporation is the University's executive board primarily made up of business executives. The other is the Board of Overseers who are elected by graduates of Harvard (Governance, 2010). The key responsibilities at this top level include governance. According to Birnbaum (1988), governance refers to legal relationships, authority patterns, rights and responsibilities, and decision-making processes. Both the Harvard Corporation and Overseers must approve major teaching and administrative appointments (Governance, 2010). Birnbaum (1988) additionally refers to governance as the "Structures and processes through which institutional participants interact with, influence each other, and communicate with the larger environment" (p. 4).

Decision making is not solely in the hands of one position, rather is spread among the trustees, president, and faculty (Birnbaum, 1988). Even though, faculty are not considered senior positions, they have become the front line decision-makers in curriculum, instruction, faculty status, and student life (Birnbaum, 1988). As a result, governance is a shared responsibility or considered a joint effort by the board, the president, and faculty; however, primary legal responsibility still lies in the hands of the board and the president (Birnbaum, 1988).

Leadership

Leaders have the ability to influence other people. Often this means influencing others to accomplish goals despite resistance from other groups (Bateman & Snell, 2009). According to Birnbaum (1988), "Effectiveness as a leader depends on fulfilling the expectations of followers," or "taps the motivations of followers to lead them to new and better values in support of intended change " (p. 24). Leadership is potentially important to coordinate and control the activities of people and groups in universities. A key source of leadership comes from legitimate power. Legitimate power is the acceptance of the common convention of hierarchical authority by departmental groups within the university organizational structure (Birnbaum,1988), As you might have guessed, the university president has the most legitimate power. The president has the right, or authority, to tell others what to do; staff members and direct reports are obligated to comply with legitimate orders (Bateman & Snell, 2009). A key source of leadership for faculty comes from referent and expert power. According to Birnbaum (1988), referent power stems from the amenableness to be influenced by another because of one's identification with the other (Birnbaum,1988). In other words, the faculty has personal characteristics that appeal to students; students adopt opinions and viewpoints because of admiration, personal liking, a desire for approval, or a desire to be liked by the professor (Bateman & Snell, 2009). A professor also has expert power. This stems from when a student accepts influence from the instructor because of a belief that the instructor has some special knowledge or competence in a specific area (Birnbaum,1988). Different forms of power can be found within the university system since each component of the university can be thought of as bureaucratically independent department; these sources of power have different effects on the responses of organization's participants.

Decision-making Processes

The process of organizational decision making takes on two forms - centralized and decentralized. The process of centralized decision-making is when those who hold senior positions make important decisions (Birnbaum, 1988). The process of decentralized decision-making is when more decisions are made at the lower levels (Kun, 1991). Ideally, decision-making should occur at the level of the people who are most directly affected and have the most intimate knowledge of the issues (Bateman and Snell, 2009). Faculty on many campuses make decisions on curriculum and academic personnel matters, the board of trustees are focused on making decisions on the business interests of the university, the president acts as the boards exclusive agent (Birnbaum, 1988). Centralization may be valuable when departments have different priorities or conflicting goals, which need to be mediated through the conventional hierarchical structure. Decentralization is particularly useful when the external environment is turbulent and decisions must be made quickly (Birnbaum, 1988; Bateman and Snell, 2009).).

Types of Colleges and Universities

Harvard University is a private university, which grants Doctorate, Master's, and Baccalaureate degrees. Harvard University has 12 special focus degree-granting schools, ranging from business, education, engineering, law, medical, and public health. Harvard does not have any educational designations in which student demographics would be considered disparate. (Harvard at a glance, 2011).

Conclusion

Each institution has a different purpose, mission, goal, and objective, which intends to attract specific types of students and faculty. Harvard is an open system that inputs students and transforms them into educated persons. Harvard's dual organizational structure additionally contributes to Harvard's success since it allows the university to quickly adapt to external environment or complex technological changes. A key source of leadership for faculty comes from referent and expert power and causes it to stand out as among the best universities. A key source of Harvard's leadership comes from legitimate power. Decision-making at Harvard is both centralized and decentralized, which contributes to Harvard's success and causes it to stand out as among the best universities.

References

About the Harvard Graduate School of Education (2010). About HGSE. Retrieved from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/about/index.html

Bateman, T.S. & Snell, S.A. (2009). Management: Leading and Collaborating in the Competitive World (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Birnbaum, R. (1988) How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dressler, G. (1998) Management: Leading people and organizations in the 21^st century. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Governance (2010). The Harvard Guide. Retrieved from http://www.news.harvard.edu/guide/content/governance

Harvard at a glance (2011) General Information. Retrieved from http://www.harvard.edu/about/glance.php

Harvard Organization Chart (2001). IT Retreat Notebook. Retrieved from http://www.itpb.ucla.edu/history/it_retreat_1999/notebook/toc.htm

Higher Learning Commission (2010). Institutional Accreditation: An Overview. Retrieved from http://www.ncahlc.org

Kuh, G.D., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J., Andreas, R.E., Lyons, J.W., Strange, C.C., et al. (1991) Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mission statement - Harvard University (2010). FAQ. Retrieved from http://www.harvard.edu/siteguide/faqs/faq110.php

Our Mission - Harvard Business School (2010). About Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http://www.hbs.edu/about/