Colleges and Universities: Institutionalized Unethical Behavior
James
W. Satterfield
Clemson
University
316
Tillman Hall
Clemson,
SC 29634
864.656.5111
satter3@clemson.edu
Carrie
Dupree
Clemson
University
cpriddy@clemson.edu
William
Hason
Clemson
University
wrhanso@clemson.edu
This paper argues the
normative everyday crisis management philosophy put forth by most colleges and
universities today does not promote a sound ethical decision making process
during a crisis. In this paper we use two theoretical constructs to explain why
we believe everyday normative management in colleges and universities can be
perceived as unethical in the midst of crisis management. Traditionally, in
institutions of higher education, crisis management has been more of reputation
management. The necessity to maintain status deems public relations
professionals vital to the success of an institution. They must also be
prepared to protect that institutional esteem in any situation. This in part is
because colleges and universities are institutionalized to operate from the
perspective of reputation management.
The
environment in which colleges and universities exist is an environment that is
open and dependent up outside resources and information that help shape the
organization (Scott, 2003). The world in which we live has changed over the
past decades, bringing new threats to our environment and crises that affect
organizationsÕ abilities to operate in a business-as-usual manner. Change is
not only continuous (Basseches, 1986), but reveals itself as an environment of
increasing rapidity (Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge, 1997; Ireland & Hitt,
2005; Marshak, 2004). Characteristics of this change (turbulent, dynamic, etc.)
have manifested themselves as societal instability (Carley, 1999). This
instability has forced institutions to incorporate increasing amounts of
control measures, when counter-intuitively; it must become more flexible and
robust to meet emergent internal and external demands.
The
fact today is that colleges and universities are microcosms of our world as we
know it. They exist with their own law enforcement, judicial systems,
entertainment, political environments, health and living facilities, and
governing systems. These things are necessary to maintain the organizational
structure and provide for institutional stability. However, just like cities
throughout the world, colleges and universities are not immune to social
problems, natural disasters, manmade disasters, epidemics, pandemics, and
terrorist attacks. Any one of these issues could stress any country, state, or
local community to the point of failure. No one knows if these events are
inevitable in nature, but the mere possibility of them warrants a clear crisis
management strategy that maintains order.
Crises
are Òunpredictable and variedÓ in nature (Duke and Masland, 2002, 30) and imply
Òchange from standard operating procedures, where this change has significant
implications for performance and peopleÓ (Mumford et al., 2007, 515). Crisis
expert Steven Fink pointed out four similarities of all crises; crises: are
escalating; come under scrutiny of the media; interfere with normal operations;
and jeopardize the positive public image of the organization (Fink, 1986). Two
of the four points outlined by Fink represent reputation damages and one
represents a disruption of business-as-normal.
The
first, escalation represents a continuously changing context requiring
requisite response. This includes the ability to change organizational
priorities and make ethical decisions. The next two—media and public
image pressures, stimulate non-ethical responses toward institution needs while
omitting the concern for member well being. The last—that of conducting
the mission of the institution is disrupted as resources and member focus are
diverted toward the crisis.
This
broad context of ÒcrisesÓ spans across industries, yet explorations of crises
have often been set in a business context. More specifically, explorations have
most commonly regarding not just business, but business-continuity and
maintaining business-as-usual to protect a businessÕ reputation. One can look
to landmark crisis management cases such as Johnson & JohnsonÕs Tylenol
contamination and ExxonÕs notorious oil spill to see the focus on
business-as-usual and reputation management. Higher education institutions are
becoming more business-like and can learn from this idea of business-as-usual
and reputation management to plan for the unexpected.
Because
of societal and organizational changes, crisis management has needed to evolve
to adjust. Sapriel (2007) indicated, Ògone are the days when corporate
spokespeople could work with their journalist contacts to mop up bad news when
things when wrong. Crisis management used to consist of having the PR
department writes up a crisis manual and organize media training to make sure
top management was ready for the worst.Ó (p.24) In addition a general lack of
coordination in managing the different elements of crises – risk
management and business continuity to name two— which results in Ògaps
and/or overlaps in processes, which reduce overall effectivenessÓ (Sapriel,
2007, p.25). Therefore, it has become essential to assign complete ownership to
one person to employ an integrated approach. Universities employ full-time
managers to cover areas of diversity, promotion, and fundraising; hiring a
crisis general manager is equally important.
Institutionalization
Given the landscape of crises
in America, colleges and universities are finding themselves having to change
institutional rules, and follow new government regulations to manage the scope
of catastrophes. An organizationÕs reputation is arguably its most valuable
asset; as a result, a positive reputation is highly related to organization
success (Gibson, Gonzales, & Castanon, 2006, 15). Yet this reputation is
constantly at risk. Over time, institutions have become more sensitive to
regulating behavior associated with the institution in order to preserve its
reputation—vital for survival. External environmental conditions have long
been represented as one that holds suspicion of the higher education
institution (Rudolph, 1990). This has forced universities to develop an
extensive regulatory framework incorporating reactive responses—to
include public image management, resulting in limiting decision making
processes and inhibiting Aristotelian reasoning during crisis.
Institutions are aware that
behavior perceived outside the normative realm and associated with the college
in any form, lowers credibility and reputation; on or off campus behavior
representing catastrophic incidences create a suspicious public and increases
criticism (Knight & Auster, 1999). If not handled in a manner that meets
external and internal expectation, organizational standing and repute are
diminished (Kelley, Agle, & DeMott, 2006; Kelley & Chang, 2007; Yeo
& Chien, 2007). This in turn, damages institutional authority and influence
(Caldwell, Karri, & Matula, 2005; Eckel, 2000).
A good reputation Òrepresents
the regard or esteem an institution or individual has in societyÓ (Byrum, 2007,
p. 14). Similarly, to corporate America colleges and universities seek to
establish and maintain brand and name recognition. According
to the National Center for Education Statistics, there are nearly 7,000
colleges in the United States. Naturally, with this vast array of schools from
which to choose, students look to school reputation to help make decisions. The
trend of university reputation rankings began in 1983 with U.S. News & World Report
(Van Dyke, 2005) and the trend continues to grow. Beyond student
enrollment, a universityÕs negative reputation could affect its many and varied
stakeholders, affecting such large elements as funding and university moraleÓ
(Dolan, 2006, 20). For colleges and universities the outside world is larger
than their on campus population; therefore, maintaining a positive reputation
is paramount.
Like traditional corporate life, in times of
institutional crisis Òcrafting and mediating your message to the outside world
is critical. In order to accomplish this, the normative aspects of
institutional culture must be clear. In most cases the normative nature in
which colleges and universities operate in has been institutionalized over a
period of time, thus making it hard to deviate during periods of crisis.
Moreover, in todayÕs consumer-based society, perception is reality, and reality
affects the bottom line. Maintaining a positive reputation requires data-driven
analysis and constant review by organizational leaders. ÒCrisis management is
no different in its need for constant, data-driven analysis that impacts
corporate actions, behavior, and public communication, with repeated plan
revisionsÓ (Gibson, Gonzales, & Castanon, 2006, p. 18). However, given the
process of institutionalization, the ideological nature and adherence to the
unethical philosophy of reputation management as crisis management is not
unusual, particularly when what a person does is mostly a representation of
their environment (DÕAndrade, 1984).This level of habitualized behavior is
linked to the process of developing shared meaning (Schutz, 1967). Thus, as people assigned meaning to
certain behaviors overtime, the instances in which meanings change would occur
decreased and resistance to change increased (Zucker, 1977).
Institutional
Pillars
The
unethical institutionalized behavior of crisis management through reputation
management can, in part be conceptually explained through two of three concepts
in ScottÕs (1995) idea of normative and regulative and cognitive institutional
pillars. The normative pillar
tells us that Ònorms specify how things should be done; they define legitimate
means to pursue valued endsÓ (Scott, 1998, p. 37). The regulative pillar
emphasizes rules, laws, and sanctions. North (1990) said that institutions have
formal written rules and unwritten codes, which, if broken, are followed up by
sanctions and punishments. The cognitive element of institutions constitutes
the nature of reality and how meaning is made of things. ÒMediating between the
external world of stimuli and the response of the individual . . . is a
collection of internalized symbolic representation of the worldÓ (Scott, 1995,
p. 40). Therefore, when thinking about crisis management through the conceptual
lenses of institutional pillars we can see that traditional institutional norms
limit social behavior but simultaneously promote social action (Scott, 1998).
Yet, the social action carried out reflects the habitual nature in which people
carry out their work (March and Olsen, 1998). This is how the routine and
standardization of norms inhibits and influences the decision making process
during a crisis. For example, in the Virginia Tech University massacre a lone
gunman killed 32 students. During the midst of the crisis university
administration took two hours to craft a message that was going out to the
public. This is clearly an instance where reputation management was more
important than managing the crisis. We are in no way suggesting that the
university leadership purposefully with held information. Rather, we believe
they simply were the victim to their own institutionalized norms. Following the
shooting at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, presidents of other colleges
looked at Virginia TechÕs PresidentÕs performance and questioned Òthe readiness
of presidents to act like corporate executives, take visible control of a
campus in crisis, manage the onslaught of camera and microphones, and strike
the right tones of both grief and confidenceÓ (Fain, 2007, 17). ÒThe immediate
aftermath of any event that takes so many young and promising lives is, at
best, chaotic and emotionally charged (Worsley & Beckering, 2007, p.
3).Ó ÒEmergency preparedness at
the higher education level must take an Ôall hazardsÕ approach; it must include
preparedness for any contingencyÓ (Worsley & Beckering, 2007, p. 3).
This
institutional response to environmental pressure, in a naturalistic move toward
survival, unconsciously places the institution above individual member well
being. We argue that this can be for a number of reasons: First, in a context
common to daily organizational life, many ethical decisions hold the luxury of
time and reflection; crisis reshapes this context. While institutional
processes handle the majority of issues is a methodical, thorough manner, dynamic
contexts overwhelm the normative and regulatory functions of the institution.
Institutional agents are driven to think of institutional needs, rather than
individual member needs as that is the nature of their daily life. Second,
regulatory response becomes habitulized in an environment alien to
crisis—it supplements decision processes involving common issues.
Pre-formed responses are there to minimize resource demands—a framework
to maximize efficiency and effectiveness and normally posing no immediate
threat to member well being. Third, institutions fail to acknowledge that when
the environment changes—when it becomes turbulent, habitual responses
fail to adjust. In the context of member well being, such as a shooter on
campus, institutional response measures may need to be reprioritized, adapted
to the needs of member well being. Fourth, in the context of Aristotelian
ethics, institutions are constrained. The institution propensity is to respond
using embedded processes while reacting under time limitations. These processes
omit deliberate ethical reasoning during crisis. That is, reason guides ethical
response, and considers others affected by institutional actions (Rachels,
1986).
It is
the normative value on public reputation that promotes unethical institutional
behavior during crises. Intertwined personal and organizational pressures for success create a dynamics ripe for
ethical leadership failure (Ciulla, 2003, p. 77). Over time, institutional
success can propagate expectation of further success and make failure so
significant, that ethical principles are sometimes made secondary. This is not
to imply that this is a conscious process, but an incremental shift driven by
survival response. Moreover, the obedience to formal rules and laws helps reinforce
an institutional value structure that can lead to crisis management process
that is inherently unethical. In many ways when institutional behavior like
this occurs people are left asking a what Peters (1966) calls practical
questions like what should I do and Why do I do this rather than that? However,
practical questions can cross personal boundaries, leaving a community to ask
Òwhat should we do?Ó (Warnick, 2007, p. 5).
In most organizations there comes a point where
they simply seek to survive and or maintain institutional legitimacy (Scott,
2001). The normative actions that provide institutional legitimacy are morally
governed. Institutions of higher education are no different; however,
legitimacy may come under question In times of crisis higher education
institutions have recently experienced lapses in ethical behavior (Humphrey,
Janosik, & Creamer, 2004; Solbrekke & Karseth, 2006; Valey, 2001). Most
often unethical behavior is also demonstrated through the regulative
institutional pillar. Many of the rules associated with crisis management on a
college and university campuses were born out of reaction to particular crises.
It is not that colleges and universities intend to operate unethically during
crises, but rather it is the regulative nature in which task environments exist
that dictate procedural standards. In most cases, colleges and universities
have neither the technology nor the task environment to handle large scales
crises. More than likely a strategic contingency exist within the institution.
Although a good idea, strategic contingencies can cause divergent perspectives
that move institutions away from philosophy of reputation management.
Professional Bureaucracy
Like many corporations in the United States, colleges
and universities operate under a hierarchical structure. Within this structure
the ability to rely on the standardization of skills is paramount. The value of
colleges and universities utilizing a professional bureaucracy in the time of
crisis is crucial to allowing the operating core to remain intact. The current
organizational structure of most post-secondary institutions does not does not
standardize the skills in crisis management. Often you have university
administrators and staff with skills in academic areas
heading
up response teams. With the focus on reputation management it is not uncommon
to find situations spinning out of control while a small groups figures out how
to protect and maintain the institutional core. However, what we believe is if
colleges and universities were to employ a model of a professional bureaucracy
it would allow a crisis management team to have control over their work
(Mintzberg, 1979). Moreover, they would have a higher level of autonomy in a
crisis situation that would allow the institution to protect its operating
core. Within a professional bureaucracy influence over a situation comes from
expertise and not formal authority (Bunker& Wijnberg, 1988). The less
formal professional network offers a more dynamic, adaptive process of meeting emergent
needs (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007), more sensitive to a context of
crisis.
Professionals
need to be free from interference to be able to concentrate on their
activities. Yet given the usually stable relationships between these
organization and their environments, professionals rarely realize the
importance of such a role until they are face with a crisis (Cheng, 1990, p.
186). Traditionally, power in a professional bureaucracy is concentrated in the
operating core but is diffused among members of the operating core (Cheng,
1990). If a professional desires to control his or her own work they will quite
naturally desire to control decisions in the time of crisis.
Within the professional bureaucracy
skills are coordinated and standardized. Most importantly, Òcontrol over his
own means that the professional works relatively independent of his colleagues,
but closely with the clients he servesÓ (Mintzberg, 1979, p. 349). When
examining the purposes colleges and universities it is important to understand
they have a different technical structure. What a professional bureaucracy
would offer is the ability to protect the institutional core by allowing a unit
to focus strictly on the crisis at hand while the other units remained focused
on the institutional operating core. This allows for more ethical decision
making because the power is decentralized. Moreover, it would allow for
professionals to be free of interference or outside influence thus allowing
them to focus strictly on crisis management activities. In the midst of crisis
a professional bureaucracy enables leaders to create a structure, a cognitive
structure, for understanding and responding to the high stakes crisis
situations that ultimately clarify goals during an event (Mumford et al., 2007).
Although decentralization allows for many different perspectives we argue that
in a time of crisis only one perspective should matter and that is the
professionals whom are trained to handle crisis events. It comes down to a
question of competency. In the time of crisis would you rather have
institutional leaders trained in an academic discipline making decisions
regarding student safety during pandemic flu, or would you prefer an
administrative system that allowed for professional to assume collective
control of decisions during crisis events? Traditionally what happens in
colleges and universities is that they Òseek to acquire expertise concerning
strategy application and will seek to apply appropriate strategies to
appropriate types of problems (Mumford, et al, 2007, 533).Ó This process simply
takes up to might time in the decision making process in the midst of a crisis.
Conclusion
Hiller and
Peters (2005) mention the importance of careful reflection to Ògenerate the
necessary discussions and deliberations to create clearer policies to benefit
responsible faculty and institutional administrators alikeÓ (p. 201). This
allows institutional members to incorporate considerations for their well being
(Uhl-Bien et al., 2007), rather than allow the institution to respond as an
inate eniety and forgetting members in the process.
Ethical constraints
imposed by external forces (society and government), as well as those imposed
by the organization, and by various groups play a tremendous part in
organizational adaptation and survival. Survival steers behavior (Ciulla,
2003). Organizations have a history of conflict between organizational
effectiveness and ethical behavior (Ciulla, 2003). They can be bounded in
ethicality—unable to see ethical challenges or issues in their normative
or regulatory processes (Chugh, Bazerman, & Banaji, 2005).
Change to institutional structure and conventions do not change institutional unethical behavior—there must be a change in culture (Luban, 2006, p. 74). For bottom-up processes to work, healthy normative frameworks should be well established. Schein (1992) proffers that organizational culture provides Òstructural stabilityÓ (p. 10). Culture includes moral thought—a collective of ethical beliefs and values in formal and informal organizations. It includes norms, values, rules, organizational climate, as well as other aspects (Schein, 1992). At the center of this are the organizational members.
Reference
Basseches, M. (1986). Dialectical thinking and young adult
cognative development. In R. A. K. Mines, K. S. (Ed.), Adult cognitive development: Methods and models (pp. 33-56). New
York: Praeger.
Caldwell, C., Karri, R., & Matula, T. (2005). Practicing
what we teach – Ethical considerations for business schools. Journal of Academic Ethics, 3(1), 1-25.
Carley, K. (1999). On the evolution of social and
organizational networks. JAI Press
special issue of Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 16, 3-30.
Chugh, D., Bazerman, M. H., & Banaji, M. (2005). Bounded
ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interests. In
D. A. Moore, D. M. Cain, G. Loewenstein & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Conflicts of interest: Challenges and
solutions in business, law, medicine, and public policy (pp. 74-95). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Ciulla, J. (2003). The
ethics of leadership. Bellmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Eckel, P. D. (2000). The role of shared governance in
institutional hard decisions: Enabler or antagonist? The Review of Higher Education, 24(1), 15–39.
Hiller, M., & Peters, T. (2005). The ethics of opinion
in Academe: Questions for an ethical and administrative dilemma. Journal of Academic Ethics, 3(2),
183-203.
Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997).
Leadership complexity and development of the Leaderplex Model. Journal of Management, 23(3), 375-408.
Humphrey, E., Janosik, S., & Creamer, D. (2004). The
role of principles, character, and professional values in ethical
decision-making. National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators, 41(3), 675-692.
Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Achieving and
maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of
strategic leadership. The Academy of
Management Executive, 19(4), 63-77.
Kelley, P., Agle, B., & DeMott, J. (2006). Mapping our
progress: Identifying, categorizing and comparing universitiesÕ ethics
infrastructures. Journal of Academic
Ethics, 3(2), 205-229.
Kelley, P., & Chang, P. (2007). A typology of university
ethical lapses: Types, levels of seriousness, and originating location. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(4),
402-429.
Knight, J., & Auster, C. J. (1999). Faculty conduct: An
empirical study of ethical activism. Journal
of Higher Education, 70(2), 188.
Luban, D. (2006). Making sense of moral meltdowns. In D.
Rhode (Ed.), Moral leadership: The theory
and practice of power, judgment, and policy (pp. 57-75). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Marshak, R. J. (2004). Morphing: The Leading Edge of
Organizational Change in the Twenty-first Century. Organization Development Journal, 22(3), 8=21.
Rachels, J. (1986). The
elements of moral philosophy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Rudolph, F. (1990). The
American college and university: A history. Athens: University of Georgia
Press.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational
culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Solbrekke, T. D., & Karseth, B. (2006). Professional
responsibility: An issue for higher education? Higher Education, 52(1), 95-119.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007).
Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to
the knowledge era. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.
Valey, T. (2001). Recent changes in higher education and
their ethical implications. Teaching
Sociology, 29(1), 1-8.
Yeo, S., & Chien, R. (2007). Evaluation of a process and
proforma for making consistent decisions about the seriousness of plagiarism
incidents. Quality in Higher Education,
13(2), 187-204.
Dolan, Thomas G. (2006).
Few schools are ready to manage a crisis. Education
Digest. 72: 2.
4-8.
Fain, Paul (2007).
Wanted: Crisis president. Chronicle of Higher Education. 53:35, p17-18.
MacDowell, Michael A.
(2005). Prepared to help when disaster strikes. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. 52:3. B16
Mintzberg,
H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Scott,
R. W. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (4th
ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Byrum,
Reed Bolton. (2007.). The need for speed: Corporate reputation management at
Web
speed. Public Relations Tactics, 14
(11), 14.
Dolan,
Thomas G. (2006.) Few Schools Are Ready
to Manage a Crisis. Education Digest,
72
(2),
20-22.
Gibson, Dirk, Gonzales, Jerra
Leigh, & Castanon, Jaclynn. (2006.) The
Importance of
Reputation and the
Role of Public Relations. Public
Relations Quarterly, 51 (3), 15-18.
Mitroff, I. (2004.) Crisis leadership: Planning
for the unthinkable. Brookfield: Rothstein
Associates, Inc.
Mumford, M.D., Friedrich, T.L., Caughron, J.J.,
& Byrne, C.L. (2007.) Leader cognition in
real-world
settings: How do leaders think about crises?
The Leadership Quarterly, 18 (6), 515-543.
Schwartz, Matthew. (2007.) Survey: Majority of
b-to-b marketers lack crisis plan. B to B,
92 (13),
1-2.
Worsley,
Tracy L. and Beckering, Don. (2007.) Comprehensive approach to emergency
planning.
College and University Journal, 82
(4), 3-6.
Carey, Russell C. (2006). The art of anticipation.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. 52:45. C1.
Dolan, Thomas G. (2006) Few schools are ready to
manage a crisis. Education Digest. 72:2, 4-8.
Duke, Shearlean, and Masland, Lynne. (2002).
Crisis communication by the book. Public
Relations Quarterly. 47:3.
30-36.
Fink, Steven. (1986.) Crisis management: Planning for the inevitable. New York, NY:
American
Management Association.
MacDowell, Michael A. (2005). Prepared to help
when disaster strikes. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. 52:3. B16.
Fain, Paul (2007). Wanted: Crisis president.
Chronicle of Higher Education. 53:35, p17-18.
Lipka, Sara. (2005). After Katrina, colleges
nationwide take a fresh look at disaster plans. The
Chronicle of Higher
Education. 52:8. A28.
Sapriel, Caroline. (2007). Talking the long
view. Communication World. 24:5, 24-27.