World-class university and organisational culture: Is diagnosing sub-culture important?
A short perspective
Globalization and internationalization are two interrelated constructs for understanding the changes occurring in the management, system, and structure of higher education institutions (HEIs) around the world. While the two are frequently considered the same, they differ in that globalization is the catalyst and internationalization is the response to it (Knight, 2004; Tight, 2019). For higher education institutions, changes for conformity to internationalization would means that they have to adapt to activities and processes of international or intercultural principles and bring these all ‘into the purpose, functions (primarily teaching/learning, research, service) or delivery higher education’ (Knight, 2004, p. 85). The literature suggests that countries have responded to internationalization of their HEIs through a catchphrase of world-class universities, of which research-intensive universities are the main characteristics (Huisman, 2010; Mok, 2014; Altbach, 2015). While constructing a world-class university requires large investments (Altbach, 2015 Salmi, 2009), financial support and national policies are necessary. Thus, national policies or tools of government have become the most noticeable attempts of countries to help stimulate their HEIs to become world-class universities, for instance in China (Woo, 2023; Hai do & Ngoc Ma,2023). The aim of such universities is to increase countries’ global competitiveness and influence. Despite such policy indicating an alignment and awareness of change with existing environmental demands, it seems to neglect the contextual and local nature of any organization. Clark (2001) argues that national policy sometimes backfires, in that it sometimes becomes an edifice that may block the change process and the achievement of university goals. Therefore, institution-level initiatives of change may become a wise start for HEIs to achieve their goals. As with the agenda of becoming world-class universities, we agree with Clark’s supposition; and thus, we argue that for HEIs to become world-class universities, change at the institutional level would be more effective than at the national policy level.
Organizational theory argues that culture that constitutes the espoused shared organizational values, beliefs, and norms can be a key factor that may block or facilitate the change process towards improving performance and enhancing the effectiveness of an organization (Cameron & Quinn, 2006, as cited in Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2016, p. 3). This is because change in organizational culture involves confronting the persistent pattern of behavior that is blocking the organization from higher performance, diagnosing its consequences, and identifying the underlying assumptions and values that have created it’ (Beer, 2000, as cited in Alvesson & Sveningsson,2016, p. 4). Therefore, a change in organizational culture is an important initial step before implementing changes to improve performance and effectiveness in organizations (Ouchi, 1980; Köse & Korkmaz, 2019; Cameron & Quinn, 2006). The same applies to internationalization in higher education, which would need a critical analysis of culture and ethical issues before considering the internationalization process (Lumby & Foskett, 2016). A few studies have acknowledged that culture may play a role (Bartell, 2003; Heffernan & Poole, 2005), but hardly any have addressed this issue in detail (Burnett & Huisman,2010).
Thus, to gain high sanguine and good organizational performance and effectiveness, culture must be strong, homogenous, stable, intense, and congruent with the strategies and actual practices of organizations (Smart & St. John, 1996; Deal & Kennedy, 1982). We are in common with this caveat and argue that cultural change may be a necessary precondition before inculcating and promulgating strategies and stimulation for building world-class universities. With this in mind, we believe that culture constitutes a deep and unconscious concept held and brought by individuals to their organizations, which influences their behavior. Accordingly, culture is the catalyst for the change of behaviors, values, and beliefs to conform to international or intercultural principles for building world-class universities.
Ideally, before implementing cultural change, it is important to know the existing culture of an organization. The typology of culture and an instrument to diagnose the existing organizational culture are dominant in organizational and management literature. The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) (Cameron & Quinn, 2006) is one of the many typologies and instruments brought to the fore. The literature on organizational culture and change has utilized, which is framed in the caveat of strong culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2006;, Smart & St. John, 1996). Although research on organizational change and reform in higher education has recognized the importance of culture (Välima, 1998), its foci revolve around: (1) how to accomplish institutional goals without a specific mention of world-class university goals, (2) how governments as main drivers of change impose policies through tools of government, such as incentives and punishments (Gaus, et.al, 2022), and (3) the dominant features of symbolic interactionist, which views culture as subjective and socially constructed constructs. Our study aims to examine and understand how existing cultures in higher education institutions (HEIs) align with the goals or missions of building world-class universities.
In our attempt to understand how organizational culture can be a catalyst or forestall for the successful agenda of becoming world-class universities, we take Indonesian universities as an illustration. Indonesian universities are struggling to enhance their international competitiveness and reputation. Emerging and developing from strong and entrenched patrimonial polity systems, Indonesian HEIs were highly bureaucratic and patrimonial in their system, structure, culture, and governance. This polity system continued well until the reformation broke out in 1998, toppling the hegemonic rule of the patrimonial, authoritarian New Order Regime of Soeharto. Patrimonial values are said to have led to poor performance, and the effectiveness of Indonesia’s HEIs has thwarted their ability and capacity to compete internationally. The euphoria towards a more democratic and decentralized polity system, as suggested by the reformation movement in 1998, including in the arrangement of higher education, gave a more positive expectation of the change of values prevailing in HEIS. Long-standing patrimonial values and principles have gradually been reoriented towards the values of market principles. The emergence of international values and principles as performance indicators in qualifying and ranking universities for world-class universities has pushed the Indonesian government to reshape Indonesian HEIs’ arrangements through the enactment of policies and regulations. Despite serious attempts through policies and regulations to stimulate the building of world-class universities, the issue and important variables of the existing patrimonial values that potentially remain deeply rooted in Indonesian HEIs have been overlooked. The change of such values has been the role and function of HEIs by simply focusing on maintaining stability in a stable environment to produce the same knowledge needed by society. Stimulating HEIs to expect a reformed bureaucratic from patrimonial to democratic system has been the core nature. It is interesting to note that in attempts to compete internationally to become world-class universities, the hands of the government are manifested in various forms of policies and regulations, overlooking the importance of institutional/organizational culture and the importance of diagnosing organizational culture before implementing international culture or dimensions in Indonesian universities. With regard to this, we argue that it would be wise to understand subculture at the departmental level in a university as a new way of understanding the culture change process and factors that may impede the success of the change process in Indonesian universities.
Tema SDGs: Quality Education; Peace, Justice, and strong Institutions: Decent Work and Economic Growth usaha UGM to support SDGs number 4, 16, 8
Penulis: Nurdiana Gaus; Wahyu Supartono; Djoko Luknanto; Lilik Nurjannah; Reonal Regen; Berlian Belasuni.
Foto : Dok. SPs UGM
