Tennessee Tech University: Stuart's Structural Theory Applied
Content
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 1 Running Head: TENNESSEE TECH: STUART’S STRUCTURAL THEORY APPLIED
Tennessee Tech University: An application of Stuart’s organizational structure theory of the effect of organizational structure on corporate identity
Dewayne Wright University of Memphis
July 23, 2009
[APA 5th]
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 2 Tennessee Tech University: An application of Stuart’s organizational structure theory of the effect of organizational structure on corporate identity Introduction Tennessee Tech University is a Master’s/Comprehensive four-year public institution. It is organized with a central administration and seven academic colleges and schools. While it has experienced record enrollment for the last eight years, breaking the 10,000-student mark in 2006, the university is starting to realize it faces corporate identity challenges. Originally founded as a technical college, the university’s largest enrollment is now in its College of Education, which includes both a music department that offers a performance degree and an arts department that offers a fine arts degree. Current students do not display the school pride exhibited by earlier generations, generating concern by university officials that the institution is a college of convenience, not a destination for students. In the last ten years, the university has been attempting to update its visual identity system, not through complete overhaul, but by the slow addition of elements. In 2006, a separate visual identity system was created for the university’s intercollegiate athletic department. This visual system, while intended to be unique to athletics, has not been sufficiently policed and has been authorized for use in areas such as the campus police and student orientation. There is confusion for the university at two levels: the corporate identity of the institution and its visual identity as evidenced by its graphic design. This paper will examine corporate identity in relation to the current practices at Tennessee Tech University. First, it will present applicable definitions of corporate identity and organizational identity, followed by an exploration of current theory regarding the effects of organizational structure on the management of corporate identity. It will then present current practices of and
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 3 challenges facing the university, as well as an evaluation of the practices and challenges by use of Stuart’s (2003) summary of structural weaknesses (p. 120). This paper will also present a brief study proposal as a way to complement the evaluation of the university’s efforts with actual research data.
Corporate identity versus organizational identity Hatch and Schultz (1997), in reviewing the identity literature, found the organizational literature focused on organization identity, while marketing literature focused on corporate identity. Albert and Whetten (1985) defined organizational identity as having three elements: its central character, distinctiveness, and enduring continuity. For Hatch and Schultz (1997), organizational identity is “embedded in organizational culture,” which provides the internal context for the creation and maintenance of the organization’s identity. Organizational identity, while communicated by top management, is interpreted and executed by members of the organization based on the culture of the organization. “Thus, organizational identity emerges from the ongoing interactions between organizational members…as well as from top management influence.” According to Hatch and Schultz (1997), corporate identity is different from organizational identity in that it is thought to be an explicit function of an organization’s leadership and focuses on the communication to external audiences.
Organizational structure and effect on corporate identity Stuart (2003) gives importance to both organizational (internal) identity and corporate (external) identity in the development of a more complete notion of corporate identity. By tying
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 4 Henry Mintzberg’s organizational structure framework, which focuses on what forces drive an organization (entrepreneurial, machine, professional, diversified, innovative, missionary), with Nicholas Ind’s corporate identity structures (monolithic, endorsed, branded), Stuart examines the effect of organizational structure on the management of corporate identity. In preparing to examine Tennessee Tech University’s current practices and challenges, we should look closer at the professional and diversified categories. Professional Professional structures have highly trained specialists operating in relative independence, according to Stuart (2003). “In addition, professionals may have more loyalty to their profession than [to] the company that employs them” (p. 116). Stuart states professional structures have a monolithic corporate identity structure. Diversified Diversified structures utilize diversification and synergy by putting together different business types that operate autonomously. Employees tend to identify with the divisions rather than the overall organization. Stuart states this structure adopts either an endorsed or branded corporate identity structure.
Current practices of and challenges facing Tennessee Tech Tennessee Tech University has a central public affairs office, which oversees the marketing, media relations, and graphic design functions of the university. This office is part of a larger university advancement office that also includes fundraising efforts. Led by an associate vice president who has access to and advises the president of the university in conjunction with a
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 5 vice president of university advancement, the office has the chief responsibility for maintaining the public image of the university. Some, but not all, of the university’s colleges have staff responsible for the creation of materials to support the goals and objectives, such as student recruitment and fundraising, of their separate colleges. In addition, in 2006, a separate visual identity system was created for the university’s intercollegiate athletic department. While this is a standard higher education practice, the fact that this new visual identity has been authorized for use by non-athletic units has created a muddied university presence where both internal and external audiences are unclear what are the official visual identifiers of the university.
Evaluating Tennessee Tech’s identity against Stuart’s structure Based on observation, the university’s central administration views the organizational structure as professional and, appropriately, the corporate identity structure as monolithic. By investing responsibility in a central public affairs unit, the university has attempted to bring a consistency to its external communication. The central administration views faculty members as professionals who are expected to conform to standards of the university. In the example of the Queensland University of Technology (Stuart 2003), the discordance between a central administration and faculty members is examined. Stuart summarizes the concern that academics have with the university’s new slogan and logo (“A university for the real world”). While the new visual identity was successful in attracting students, faculty members found it threatening to their unique ways of approaching their work.
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 6 While Tennessee Tech’s central administration views the organization as professional/monolithic, individual colleges and units such as athletics view the university as a diversified structure. Faculty in the colleges tend to be loyal to their college more so than to the university. The goals and objectives of the college, which may not be in line with the strategic goals and objectives of the university, tend to take precedence for members of that college. Instead of promoting the overall status and successes of the university, they place an emphasis on the attributes of their college. Also, the colleges view the creation of a separate visual system for another unit (athletics) as a license to ‘do their own thing’ and disregard the university’s visual identity if they wish.
A brief study proposal By utilizing a census of university administrators and academic deans, along with a random survey of faculty and staff, a clearer, accurate picture of the corporate identity of Tennessee Tech University can be obtained. Using Balmer and Greyser’s AC2ID Test (Balmer and Greyser, 2003) as a starting point, a survey instrument will be developed and administered. Survey results will be examined to see if there are any quantitative differences between the respondent groupings (central administration, academic faculty, staff) in any of the five identities (actual, conceived, communicated, ideal, desired) used in the AC2ID Test framework.
Conclusion Tennessee Tech needs to examine the discordance between how the central administration views the university and how individual units view the university. Additional research is needed to determine the best way to achieve the university’s established strategic goals and objectives.
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 7 Perhaps the research will show that the best way to achieve these goals is to behave as a diversified organization with its branded or endorsed corporate identity allowing individual colleges to concentrate on their defined successes and culture and branded as part of the university; perhaps as a professional organization, where no identity is larger than that of the overall university. Or, perhaps, the best way is a fusion of the two, with the overall university identity informing the communication of the diversified colleges.
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 8 References Albert, S., & Whetten, D. (2003). Organizational identity. In Balmer, J., & Greyser, S. (Eds.), Revealing the corporation: Perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing (pp. 77-105). London: Routledge. Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2003). Managing the multiple identities of the corporation. In Balmer, J., & Greyser, S. (Eds.), Revealing the corporation: Perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing (pp. 15-29). London: Routledge. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing 31 (5-6), 356(10). Stuart, H. (2003). The effect of organizational structure on corporate identity management. In Balmer, J., & Greyser, S. (Eds.), Revealing the corporation: Perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing (pp. 106-123). London: Routledge. van Riel, C. B. M., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and management. European Journal of Marketing 31(5-6), 340(16).
Tennessee Tech University: An application of Stuart’s organizational structure theory of the effect of organizational structure on corporate identity
Dewayne Wright University of Memphis
July 23, 2009
[APA 5th]
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 2 Tennessee Tech University: An application of Stuart’s organizational structure theory of the effect of organizational structure on corporate identity Introduction Tennessee Tech University is a Master’s/Comprehensive four-year public institution. It is organized with a central administration and seven academic colleges and schools. While it has experienced record enrollment for the last eight years, breaking the 10,000-student mark in 2006, the university is starting to realize it faces corporate identity challenges. Originally founded as a technical college, the university’s largest enrollment is now in its College of Education, which includes both a music department that offers a performance degree and an arts department that offers a fine arts degree. Current students do not display the school pride exhibited by earlier generations, generating concern by university officials that the institution is a college of convenience, not a destination for students. In the last ten years, the university has been attempting to update its visual identity system, not through complete overhaul, but by the slow addition of elements. In 2006, a separate visual identity system was created for the university’s intercollegiate athletic department. This visual system, while intended to be unique to athletics, has not been sufficiently policed and has been authorized for use in areas such as the campus police and student orientation. There is confusion for the university at two levels: the corporate identity of the institution and its visual identity as evidenced by its graphic design. This paper will examine corporate identity in relation to the current practices at Tennessee Tech University. First, it will present applicable definitions of corporate identity and organizational identity, followed by an exploration of current theory regarding the effects of organizational structure on the management of corporate identity. It will then present current practices of and
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 3 challenges facing the university, as well as an evaluation of the practices and challenges by use of Stuart’s (2003) summary of structural weaknesses (p. 120). This paper will also present a brief study proposal as a way to complement the evaluation of the university’s efforts with actual research data.
Corporate identity versus organizational identity Hatch and Schultz (1997), in reviewing the identity literature, found the organizational literature focused on organization identity, while marketing literature focused on corporate identity. Albert and Whetten (1985) defined organizational identity as having three elements: its central character, distinctiveness, and enduring continuity. For Hatch and Schultz (1997), organizational identity is “embedded in organizational culture,” which provides the internal context for the creation and maintenance of the organization’s identity. Organizational identity, while communicated by top management, is interpreted and executed by members of the organization based on the culture of the organization. “Thus, organizational identity emerges from the ongoing interactions between organizational members…as well as from top management influence.” According to Hatch and Schultz (1997), corporate identity is different from organizational identity in that it is thought to be an explicit function of an organization’s leadership and focuses on the communication to external audiences.
Organizational structure and effect on corporate identity Stuart (2003) gives importance to both organizational (internal) identity and corporate (external) identity in the development of a more complete notion of corporate identity. By tying
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 4 Henry Mintzberg’s organizational structure framework, which focuses on what forces drive an organization (entrepreneurial, machine, professional, diversified, innovative, missionary), with Nicholas Ind’s corporate identity structures (monolithic, endorsed, branded), Stuart examines the effect of organizational structure on the management of corporate identity. In preparing to examine Tennessee Tech University’s current practices and challenges, we should look closer at the professional and diversified categories. Professional Professional structures have highly trained specialists operating in relative independence, according to Stuart (2003). “In addition, professionals may have more loyalty to their profession than [to] the company that employs them” (p. 116). Stuart states professional structures have a monolithic corporate identity structure. Diversified Diversified structures utilize diversification and synergy by putting together different business types that operate autonomously. Employees tend to identify with the divisions rather than the overall organization. Stuart states this structure adopts either an endorsed or branded corporate identity structure.
Current practices of and challenges facing Tennessee Tech Tennessee Tech University has a central public affairs office, which oversees the marketing, media relations, and graphic design functions of the university. This office is part of a larger university advancement office that also includes fundraising efforts. Led by an associate vice president who has access to and advises the president of the university in conjunction with a
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 5 vice president of university advancement, the office has the chief responsibility for maintaining the public image of the university. Some, but not all, of the university’s colleges have staff responsible for the creation of materials to support the goals and objectives, such as student recruitment and fundraising, of their separate colleges. In addition, in 2006, a separate visual identity system was created for the university’s intercollegiate athletic department. While this is a standard higher education practice, the fact that this new visual identity has been authorized for use by non-athletic units has created a muddied university presence where both internal and external audiences are unclear what are the official visual identifiers of the university.
Evaluating Tennessee Tech’s identity against Stuart’s structure Based on observation, the university’s central administration views the organizational structure as professional and, appropriately, the corporate identity structure as monolithic. By investing responsibility in a central public affairs unit, the university has attempted to bring a consistency to its external communication. The central administration views faculty members as professionals who are expected to conform to standards of the university. In the example of the Queensland University of Technology (Stuart 2003), the discordance between a central administration and faculty members is examined. Stuart summarizes the concern that academics have with the university’s new slogan and logo (“A university for the real world”). While the new visual identity was successful in attracting students, faculty members found it threatening to their unique ways of approaching their work.
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 6 While Tennessee Tech’s central administration views the organization as professional/monolithic, individual colleges and units such as athletics view the university as a diversified structure. Faculty in the colleges tend to be loyal to their college more so than to the university. The goals and objectives of the college, which may not be in line with the strategic goals and objectives of the university, tend to take precedence for members of that college. Instead of promoting the overall status and successes of the university, they place an emphasis on the attributes of their college. Also, the colleges view the creation of a separate visual system for another unit (athletics) as a license to ‘do their own thing’ and disregard the university’s visual identity if they wish.
A brief study proposal By utilizing a census of university administrators and academic deans, along with a random survey of faculty and staff, a clearer, accurate picture of the corporate identity of Tennessee Tech University can be obtained. Using Balmer and Greyser’s AC2ID Test (Balmer and Greyser, 2003) as a starting point, a survey instrument will be developed and administered. Survey results will be examined to see if there are any quantitative differences between the respondent groupings (central administration, academic faculty, staff) in any of the five identities (actual, conceived, communicated, ideal, desired) used in the AC2ID Test framework.
Conclusion Tennessee Tech needs to examine the discordance between how the central administration views the university and how individual units view the university. Additional research is needed to determine the best way to achieve the university’s established strategic goals and objectives.
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 7 Perhaps the research will show that the best way to achieve these goals is to behave as a diversified organization with its branded or endorsed corporate identity allowing individual colleges to concentrate on their defined successes and culture and branded as part of the university; perhaps as a professional organization, where no identity is larger than that of the overall university. Or, perhaps, the best way is a fusion of the two, with the overall university identity informing the communication of the diversified colleges.
Tennessee Tech: Stuart’s Structural Theory Applied 8 References Albert, S., & Whetten, D. (2003). Organizational identity. In Balmer, J., & Greyser, S. (Eds.), Revealing the corporation: Perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing (pp. 77-105). London: Routledge. Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2003). Managing the multiple identities of the corporation. In Balmer, J., & Greyser, S. (Eds.), Revealing the corporation: Perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing (pp. 15-29). London: Routledge. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing 31 (5-6), 356(10). Stuart, H. (2003). The effect of organizational structure on corporate identity management. In Balmer, J., & Greyser, S. (Eds.), Revealing the corporation: Perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing (pp. 106-123). London: Routledge. van Riel, C. B. M., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and management. European Journal of Marketing 31(5-6), 340(16).
