Organizational culture and
effectiveness in business schools:
a test of the accreditation impact
Christophe Lejeune and Alain Vas
Louvain School of Management, Universite´ catholique de Louvain,
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Abstract
Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to measure the perceived impact of an accreditation process
on organizational effectiveness and culture.
Design/methodology/approach– A survey led with 31 deans and directors general of European
Quality Improvement System (EQUIS) accredited schools measures the impact of EQUIS on those constructs.
Findings– The paper shows a positive impact on some dimensions of effectiveness, and no impact
related to the bureaucracy dimension of culture. The dimensions of organizational effectiveness that have the highest perceived positive impact are the “programs development and quality of the faculty”, the “social openness and community interaction” and the “ability to acquire resources”. In particular, two cultural dimensions are strongly correlated to effectiveness: adhocracy and market. Finally, the cultural change induced by accreditation seems to be correlated with a positive impact on performance.
Research limitations/implications– This research is based on a small sample of perceived
measures, with a single person per institution.
Originality/value– The paper looks at the unexplored field of international business schools that
have got the EQUIS accreditation. Cultural changes induced by EQUIS are suggested to imply a positive impact on performance.
KeywordsBusiness schools, Organizational culture, Organizational effectiveness,
Organizational performance, Accreditation of prior learning
Paper typeResearch paper
Introduction
Accreditation is spreading among higher education institutions as it aims at the improvement of institutions (Hedmo, 2004; Harvey, 2004). The question of its impact on organizational effectiveness seems thus particularly interesting. However, the literature on quality approaches seems mitigated regarding an impact on performance. On the one hand, some authors show that quality initiatives imply an increase of the operational result (Hendricks and Singhal, 1997), that accreditation involves a commitment to excellence (Cornuel, 2007), or that certifications improve financial performance
(Chow-Chua et al., 2003). Other authors argue that quality does not always lead to
effectiveness gains but to a strengthened legitimacy (Westphalet al., 1997), or that its
only application is not enough to explain a superior performance (Powell, 1995). The existing literature dealing with the impact of accreditation is also dubitative in regard to
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
The authors are grateful to Eric Cornuel for the access to the empirical field and to Nathalie Delobbe for helpful suggestions and comments.
JMD
28,8
728
Journal of Management Development Vol. 28 No. 8, 2009
pp. 728-741
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited 0262-1711
an effect on performance. According to Harvey (2004), accreditation is incompatible with the improvement of organizational effectiveness as it overloads higher education institutions with the production of public relations documents. In the same line, Julian and Ofori-Dankwa (2006) argue that American accreditation is likely to paralyse schools in their ability to adapt to environmental changes, leading to a kind of accreditocracy. However, there is no empirical study measuring the impact of the accreditation on organizational effectiveness and culture of international business schools.
Organizational culture
Research on organizational culture has been at the centre of debates since the 1980s (Ouchi, 1980; Wilkins and Ouchi, 1983; Quinn and Rohrbraugh, 1983; Schein, 1985; Barney, 1986). Barney (1986, p. 657) defines culture as “a complex set of values, beliefs, assumptions, and symbols that define the way in which a firm conducts its business”. If there is usually few agreements on a unique definition of culture, Barney (1986) maintains that culture can be a source of competitive advantage, and develop an increased performance. As a set of values, culture is related to the dimensions of performance, as Quinn and Rohrbraugh (1983) have shown. Indeed, based upon a survey by experts in organization theory, these authors have evaluated the similarity between each possible pair of performance indices, among a set of 39 indices from Campbell’s (1977) exhaustive study. Multidimensional scaling procedures have been used to detect underlying cognitive dimensions of these indices. Their results show two main dimensions that are linked to values. The first dimension is the organizational interest, and allows distinguishing organizations that focus on the internal side (the well-being and the development of people in the organization) from organizations that focus on the external side (health and development of the organization itself ). The second dimension is related to the organizational structure and separates organizations that insist on stability and control from organizations that aim at flexibility and innovation. Putting these two dimensions together, Quinn and Rohrbraugh (1983) build a spatial model that is shown in Figure 1.
The cultural impact of accreditation can be approached with Quinn and Rohrbraugh’s (1983) model, in particular its two main dimensions. First, an organization is faced, during
Figure 1.
Competitive value framework
Internal interest External interest
Stability Flexibility
Source: Quinn and Rohrbraugh (1983)
Open systems model Adhocratic culture
Rational objectives model Market culture Human relations model
Clan culture
Internal processes model Bureaucratic culture
Organizational
culture and
effectiveness
the accreditation process, with standards defined by its competitive environment. This meeting allows a broader openness of organizational culture towards the outside. Further, the accreditation is likely to increase internal cohesion between individuals who mobilize themselves in order to get the label. Accreditation also contributes to formalize a set of internal processes (e.g. courses evaluations, career planning, etc.). In other words, the accreditation strengthens internal integration as well as the awareness of the external environment. Second, the respect of quality standards implies an organizational adaptation and the acquisition of new resources (e.g. financing, academic personnel, etc.). These changes go with stronger flexibility and innovation in the organizational culture (e.g. new courses programmes, alliances with other schools, etc.). At the same time, accreditation is likely to load internal mechanisms of communication and documentation, leading to more bureaucracy. In other words, accreditation strengthens both innovation and control. Thus, the dimensions of the competitive value framework (Quinn and Rohrbraugh, 1983) seem both interesting and adequate in order to grasp the cultural impact of accreditation.
Based upon these conjectures, we set two assumptions with the perceived impact of accreditation on cultural traits: clan, adhocracy, market and bureaucracy (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). We argue that the development of the first three traits will be positively perceived, whereas the development of the bureaucratic trait will be
negatively perceived (Proitzet al., 2004; Julian and Ofori-Dankwa, 2006). By the nature
of its activities, a business school is indeed almost forced to integrate “the international awareness”, hence to develop its openness (adhocracy and market). The development of the external side induced by the accreditation should be positively perceived. Concerning the internal side, if an increased cohesion between the members of an organization (internal-flexibility quarter) may be positively perceived, the development of administrative processes and bureaucratic control (internal-stability quarter) may be perceived negatively. Our assumptions are thus stated as follows:
H1a. Accreditation has a positive impact on the cultural traits of adhocracy, market
and clan.
H1b. Accreditation has a negative impact on the cultural trait of bureaucracy.
In the literature on organizational culture, Quinn and Rohrbraugh (1983) have linked conceptually the types of culture and criteria of organizational effectiveness. The next part intends to highlight the theme of organizational effectiveness in general first, then in the higher education sector.
Organizational effectiveness
March and Sutton (1997, p. 705) characterize research on organizational effectiveness more as a “necessary form of disciplined self-flagellation than a pursuit of happiness”. As a complex construct, different models of organizational effectiveness have been suggested. For instance, Bludorn (1980) argues that the objectives model is best, which means that organizations are effective if they reach their objectives. Seashore and Yuchtman (1967) and Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) plead in favour of a resources dependence model, which means that organizations are effective if they acquire the needed resources. Nadler and Tushman (1980) propose the internal processes model, where effective organizations work constantly without any major breakdown.
Connollyet al.(1980) maintain that the strategic constituencies model is best, which
JMD
28,8
means that organizations are performing when they succeed in satisfying their stakeholders. According to Cameron and Whetten (1996), the competitive value framework integrates the first four models cited above.
Although there are several problems related to the assessment of organizational effectiveness, the work of Cameron (1978, 1986) has allowed defining and measuring organizational effectiveness for higher education institutions. In his work, criteria of performance have been generated from interviews with administrators and academics from six north-west colleges in the USA. The reliability and the validity of these dimensions have been tested again in more recent studies (Cameron, 1986; Kwan and Walker, 2003; Smart, 2003). Finally, Cameron and Whetten (1996) categorize Cameron’s (1978) study among the ones that constitute the “multiple constituencies” approach. Indeed, Cameron’s nine dimensions are mainly defined from the perspective of students, academic personnel and administrative personnel: students education satisfaction (SES), students academic development (SAD), students career
development (SCD), students personal development (SPD), faculty and
administrators employment satisfaction (FAES), professional development and quality of the faculty (PDQF), system openness and community interaction (SOCI), ability to acquire resources (AAR), organizational health (OH).
The impact of accreditation on organizational effectiveness can thus be approached with this instrument. We also observe that quality standards defined by the accreditation converge with the dimensions of organizational effectiveness. For instance, the European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS) accreditation ensures that the relationship between schools and the corporate world be guaranteed. This will be beneficial for SPD or for the adaptation to environmental changes and requirements (SOCI). In line previous research that show the positive impact of total
quality management on performance (Hendricks and Singhal, 1997; Chow-Chuaet al.,
2003; Woodhouse, 2003), we set the following assumption:
H2. Accreditation has a positive perceived impact on organizational effectiveness.
As we focus on the perceived impact that accreditation has on culture and effectiveness, their relationship is also interesting. For instance, organizational culture has created a great interest for managers because it has been perceived as a key factor for performance (Cameron and Sine, 1999). Indeed, internal integration (Schein, 1985), cohesion and involvement were expected to increase organizational effectiveness. The next part is dedicated to this issue.
Relationship between culture and organizational effectiveness
The link between culture and performance has been at the centre of several debates since the 1980s (Quinn and Rohrbraugh, 1983; Schein, 1985; Barney, 1986). In general, studies on this issue are of two kinds (Gordon and DiTomaso, 1992). On the one hand, there is the “cultural traits” approach that states certain types of organizational culture are associated with a better financial performance than others (Denison, 1990; Denison and Mishra, 1995). On the other hand, there is the “culture strength” approach that focuses on the degree of homogeneity or the “strength” of the culture in order to explain performance, no matter the cultural type (Calori and Sarnin, 1991; Gordon and DiTomaso, 1992; Sorensen, 2002). However, Smart and St John (1996) analyse the pros of each approach simultaneously and try to reconcile them. They define a culture type
Organizational
culture and
effectiveness
as the cultural trait having the highest score. In this line, we consider that cultural traits have an impact proportional to their respective intensity in the organizational culture (Gordon and DiTomaso, 1992). In other terms, we consider that different cultural traits are simultaneously present in any organization, and that their respective intensity is roughly correlated with the dimensions of organizational effectiveness (Denison and Mishra, 1995; Smart and St John, 1996). Besides, Smart and St John (1996) show that strong cultures that value the individuals (clan and adhocracy) are more effective for most dimensions of performance than strong cultures that value and implement control policies (bureaucracy and market) for higher education institutions.
Smartet al.(1997) have similar conclusions on a sample of 30 two-years colleges with
639 observations: they show that adhocracy and clan are positively associated with performance whereas bureaucratic and market traits are negatively correlated. In their line, we suggest the following assumptions:
H3a. Clan and adhocracy cultural traits in an international business school are
positively correlated with organizational effectiveness.
H3b. Market and bureaucracy cultural traits in an international business school are
negatively correlated with organizational effectiveness.
Methodology
This part introduces our methodology. First, we present our field of investigation. Second, we describe our sample and the measure of our variables. Finally, we briefly characterize the way data analysis has been conducted.
Field of investigation
In order to answer to the question of the impact of accreditation on organizational effectiveness and organizational culture, the EQUIS accreditation case has been selected. The reasons for this choice are triple. First, it has a European perspective on accreditation that is likely to bear a different insight to this issue than the American perspective adopted by Julian and Ofori-Dankwa (2006). Second, the EQUIS accreditation has the will to respect the diversity of national cultures as well as to impose quality standards that are well recognised on the international scene, increasing the interest for this research that apprehends the impact of accreditation on organizational culture. Third, we have benefited from some methodological opportunism as we have been able to access 58 director generals and deans (DG&D) of EQUIS accredited schools, during a deans’meeting organized by European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) in January 2006 in Rotterdam. Director generals and deans are recognised as well informed persons about their school, and whose perceptions about organizational effectiveness and culture may be interesting. In the context of this research, the choice of our method is to use a transversal questionnaire. During its building, our questionnaire has been submitted to a pre-test (Thie´tart, 2003) by eight academic individuals; among them were five former deans and director generals. In the next lines, we present the peculiarities of the EQUIS accreditation.
EQUIS is an international accreditation system that has been launched in 1997 by EFMD and that is dedicated to management education institutions. Although emphasizing and respecting the diversity of schools, the main objectives of the EQUIS
JMD
28,8
system are to provide market information, a benchmarking tool, and quality improvement. The accreditation process includes five steps: application, eligibility confirmation, production of a self-assessment report, international peer review and decision by the Awarding Body. So as to get a five or three years accreditation, the schools must be able to prove that they satisfy the quality criteria in three particular fields:
(1) international quality standards in all the fields defined by the EQUIS model; (2) a high level of internationalisation; and
(3) the integration of the needs of the corporate world in institutional programmes, activities and processes.
Data collection
Introduced as a research led by a university and with the support of EFMD, an anonymous questionnaire has been launched for the annual meeting for DG&D, organized by EFMD at the Rotterdam School of Management on 26-28 January 2006. Approximately, 250 persons have participated in this forum. Among them were 58 DG&D from EQUIS accredited schools. In January 2006, the total number of EQUIS accredited schools was 87. These 58 participants (66 per cent of the population) have received the questionnaire at this meeting. In order to increase the response rate, a recall strategy has been implemented. Thus, a first recall by phone has been conducted in February 2006 and the last answers have been received in November 2006. This method has allowed to obtain 31 answers, that is 53.44 per cent of the 58 targeted
schools, and 35.63 per cent from the initial populationðn¼87Þ.
Sample
Among the 31 institutions in the sample, the geographical origin has been mentioned for 30 of them: 24 are situated in Europe (80 per cent) and three are located in America (10 per cent). Compared to the share of EQUIS accredited schools in Europe (65 per cent) and America (15 per cent), our sample incorporates more European institutions than the actual population of EQUIS accredited schools. In our sample, the average number of full time students is 2,631 (from 25 to 9,000), whereas the average number of part time students is 2,058 (from 90 to 8,000). The permanent faculty is on average 148 (from 25 to 400). The average percentage of private funding is 70 per cent (from 10 to 100 per cent), whereas the percentage of public funding is 30 per cent (from 0 to 90 per cent). Concerning the school profile, three DG&D (9.68 per cent) affirm that their institution has a teaching profile, whereas only one (3.23 per cent) considers to be focused primarily on research. The 27 others (87.10 per cent) are positioned as being focused on both research and teaching. Finally, a question has been asked on the strategic direction in regard of research and teaching activities. The 17 DG&D (54.84 per cent) plan to keep the existing situation, 11 others (35.45 per cent) plan to increase the research activities and two others (6.45 per cent) plan to increase the teaching activities only.
Measures of variables
Former studies on organizational effectiveness have measured managerial perceptions (Denison and Mishra, 1995; Walton and Dawson, 2001). According to Denison and Mishra (1995), subjective measures of organizational effectiveness provide a better fit
Organizational
culture and
effectiveness
for a comparison of a diversified set of organizations than objective measures of performance. In this line, we focus on the measures of DG&D’ perceptions.
The questionnaire used in this research is based on validated scales to measure the concepts of culture and performance. Thus, for organizational effectiveness, Cameron’s (1978) nine dimensions have been adapted through 43 items recently used by Kwan and Walker (2003) and Smart (2003). Concerning organizational culture, Cameron and Quinn’s (1999) 24 items have been used.
For each concept and its items, the first measure concerns the perception of the situation in the school at the time of the administration of the questionnaire. Respondents have to choose on a Likert scale from 1 to 6 (from strongly disagree to strongly agree) an answer for the proposition “In my school, it can be said that”. The second measure concerns the perception of the impact of EQUIS on each item. For these questions, respondents have to
evaluate their perception on Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1¼very negative; 3¼no impact;
5¼very positive) in regard to the proposition “The impact of the EQUIS process has
been”. In this last case, a five grades Likert scale has been used so as to let the choice of a neutral answer (no impact) to the respondents. Variables linked to the first measure (perception of the situation) have a name where the first letter is “M” for “measure”. Variables linked to the second measure (perception of the impact of EQUIS) have a name where the first letter is “I” for “impact” (Tables I and II).
Data analysis
As the size of our sample is smallðn¼31Þ;we conduct a descriptive analysis and use
student tests and correlations between the different dimensions of our concepts (Denison and Mishra, 1995), as a factorial analysis is not feasible. However, the scales we use have been validated several times in previous studies. We thus posit the assumption that these scales measure independent dimensions. Further, it seems useful to measure the
reliability of our scales with Cronbach alphas. It is usually recognised thata.0:7 are
reasonable (Smart and St John, 1996). For some scales, items have been withdrawn so as to improve Cronbach alphas. By the way, we obtained reliability scores that seem acceptable for all variables but still not for the “student education satisfaction” and “Social Openness and Community Interaction” dimensions (Table II). For the statistic computations, we use the SPSS version 13.0 software.
Variable n m s t-student p-value
1 I_Clan 29 3.3793 0.46397 4.403 0.000 2 I_Ad hoc 29 3.4368 0.51257 4.589 0.000 3 I_Bureau 29 3.1517 0.37285 2.191 0.037 4 I_Market 29 3.4345 0.41771 5.601 0.000 5 I_SES 30 3.2111 0.42420 2.726 0.011 6 I_SAD 30 3.4333 0.44978 5.277 0.000 7 I_SCD 30 3.4050 0.43635 5.084 0.000 8 I_SPD 30 3.2222 0.41369 2.942 0.006 9 I_FAES 30 3.4111 0.49273 4.570 0.000 10 I_PDQF 30 3.6726 0.56556 6.514 0.000 11 I_SOCI 30 3.6417 0.54805 6.413 0.000 12 I_AAR 30 3.5256 0.49856 5.774 0.000 13 I_OH 30 3.2811 0.35099 4.387 0.000 Table I.
Descriptive statistics and student tests for the measures of the impact of EQUIS
JMD
28,8
Variable m s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 M_Clan 4.768 0.609 (0.762) 2 M_Ad hoc 4.613 0.835 0.501 * * (0.847) 3 M_Burea 3.527 0.795 2 0.007 0.124 (0.716) 4 M_Marke 4.548 0.657 0.572 * * 0.382 * 0.077 (0.717) 5 M_SES 5.376 0.477 0.494 * * 0.410 * 2 0.428 * 0.319 (0.672) 6 M_SAD 4.984 0.769 2 0.051 0.025 2 0.231 2 0.061 0.365 * (0.870;) 7 M_SCD 5.256 0.581 0.276 0.553 * * 2 0.317 0.226 0.572 * * 0.166 (0.814) 8 M SPD 4.882 0.693 0.470 * * 0.448 * 2 0.122 0.311 0.514 * * 0.325 0.445 * (0.790) 9 M_FAES 5.161 0.654 0.420 * 0.548 * * 2 0.402 * 0.210 0.591 * * 0.196 0.649 * * 0.224 (0.790) 10 M_PDQF 4.793 0.784 0.079 0.477 * * 2 0.056 0.224 0.131 2 0.195 0.250 2 0.029 0.309 (0.849) 11 M_SOCI 5.323 0.414 0.479 * * 0.562 * * 0.133 0.357 * 0.194 0.004 0.225 0.524 * * 0.278 0.231 (0.652) 12 M_AAR 4.623 0.694 0.182 0.515 * * 2 0.394 * 0.381 * 0.385 * 0.189 0.635 * * 0.331 0.488 * * 0.484 * * 0.189 (0.836) 13 M_OH 5.112 0.552 0.410 * 0.376 * 2 0.399 * 0.354 0.497 * * 0.064 0.406 * 0.239 0.550 * * 0.451 * 0.342 0.316 (0.796) Notes: Significant correlation at the level: *0.05; * *0.01 (two-tailed), respectively; Cronbach alphas are put into brackets Table II. Correlations between variables
Organizational
culture and
effectiveness
735
Results
In order to answer our research questions, we go now through our assumptions. We begin with the impact of accreditation on organizational culture. We go on with impact on organizational effectiveness. We end up with our assumptions on the relationships between culture and organizational effectiveness.
First, the impact of EQUIS accreditation on organizational culture exists and is not neutral (Table I). This impact is positively perceived for clan, adhocracy and market
cultural traits. With student tests, we conclude thatH1ais validated (null hypothesis:
m¼3; alternative hypothesis:m–3) at the level of 1 per cent. However, the impact on
the bureaucratic cultural trait is positively perceived on average, but a student test does not allow maintaining this statement: we keep the no-impact assumption, which
invalidatesH1b.
Second, the impact of EQUIS accreditation on organizational effectiveness also
exists and is significantly positive for eight dimensions out of nine (Table I). TheH2
assumption being general is partially validated. Student tests (level of 1 per cent) force us to keep the no-impact assumption for the SES (I_SES). In terms of the highest impacts, we notice the dimensions related to the PDQF (I_PDQF), the SOCI (I_SOCI) and the AAR (I_AAR).
Third, the link between organizational culture and organizational effectiveness
seems to be confirmed at least partially forH3a(Table II). Indeed, the clan cultural trait
(variable “M_Clan”) is significantly correlated with five dimensions of organizational effectiveness: SES (M_SES), SPD (M_SPD), FAES (M_FAES), SOCI (M_SOCI) and OH (M_OH). The adhocracy cultural trait is significantly correlated with eight dimensions of organizational effectiveness. To those that are positively correlated with the clan cultural trait, there are other added dimensions such as SCD (M_SCD), PDQF (M_PDQF), and AAR (M_AAR).
Concerning theH3bassumption, it is invalidated as the only bureaucracy cultural
trait is negatively correlated with four dimensions of organizational effectiveness. Surprisingly, the market cultural trait is positively correlated with two dimensions of organizational effectiveness (Table II): SOCI (M_SOCI) and the AAR (M_AAR).
Discussion
Accreditation has a clearly announced function of improvement (Hedmo, 2004; Harvey, 2004) for management schools. Arguing that accreditation improves organizational effectiveness is therefore not surprising (Zammuto, 2008). However, this research suggests that accreditation may not lead to improve students’ satisfaction. Although one would expect accreditation to improve the quality of educational programmes, we observe that the deans’ perceptions emphasized more the impact of accreditation on the attractiveness or image of their school, as an improved performance, rather than students’ satisfaction with their curricula. Further, the dimensions of effectiveness that seem to have been most improved are linked to schools’ resources, in particular qualified faculty and academic partners. To this extent, the accreditation seems rather to have strengthened an external ability to acquire and develop strategic resources. Regarding students’ satisfaction, it could be interesting to compare EQUIS and Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) on this dimension, as the later seems more focused on the “assurance of learning” through the establishment of learning objectives. Students may indeed be more directly satisfied
JMD
28,8
with clearly defined courses’ objectives than the number of international partners of their school. As a specific case study, the studied accreditation highly values the international community interaction as well as the development of links to the corporate world that may be useful to the development of the faculty. Therefore, this research shows that the most improved dimensions of organizational effectiveness are indeed linked to these criteria. In other terms, the impact of an accreditation on organizational effectiveness depends finally on the type and criteria of accreditation being studied. Based on specific standards, the accreditation not only allows improving some dimensions of organizational effectiveness but has also cultural implications as this research has confirmed.
The cultural impact of accreditation has been highlighted by several authors (Proitz
et al., 2004; Julian and Ofori-Dankwa, 2006) but without any quantitative approach. This research suggests that the EQUIS accreditation promotes an open organizational culture, with no significant impact on the administrative workload. This modest result seems to partially contradict Julian and Ofori-Dankwa’s (2006) arguments that accreditation implies an increase in bureaucracy and in fine a loss of organizational flexibility, thus a decrease in performance. However, the choice of a specific accreditation may explain different cultural impacts. In particular, Julian and Ofori-Dankwa (2006) refer to AACSB that is argued to increase the administrative workload in business schools. Globally, AACSB seems indeed to be more focused on processes and management control, while EQUIS appears as being more focused on strategic and accountability considerations. In this regard, only a comparative study could show differences between EQUIS and AACSB. Although bureaucracy may create value for students (Romero, 2008), we cannot conclude that EQUIS has developed any kind of a bureaucracy that creates value for students, leading eventually to more satisfaction.
Concerning the connections between organizational effectiveness and culture, this research shows that bureaucracy is not associated with any dimension of performance. These findings are coherent with previous research (Smart and St John, 1996). The results even indicate a negative correlation of bureaucracy with several dimensions of organizational effectiveness. In other terms, DG&D seem to support the association of a bureaucratic culture with a weak performance. But, contrarily to former research, our results present positive correlations between the market cultural trait and two dimensions of organizational effectiveness. Indeed, it appears that cultural changes implied by the accreditation have taken place along the acquisition of more resources, a better image and an increase in community interactions. In this regard, the studied accreditation let us suggest that modifications of resources – physical, human, financial, or relational – play a major role in the cultural changes as well as in the effectiveness improvement. However, the openness character is central for EQUIS that insists on the internationalisation of business schools. To the extent that the accreditation expects schools to become more international, it is not therefore surprising that the schools’ leaders perceive a market culture to be a positive change through accreditation, although it means also an increased competition in a bigger arena. As EQUIS was born from a set of European rooted quality standards, it does not only involve quality issues but also identity stakes, which may have been underestimated. Indeed, in as much as the dimensions of organizational culture and effectiveness are impacted by accreditation, these two constructs are at the heart of
Organizational
culture and
effectiveness
organizational identity. Values and perceptions of effectiveness are indeed strong vectors of identity. There is thus a need for further qualitative research to better understand how the accreditation process involve changes in resources, and how these can affect organizational identity notably through organizational culture and image.
Limits and perspectives
Next to its above contributions, this research has several limits that are now detailed.
First, the analysed sampleðn¼31Þis small. Conversely, it represents 35.63 per cent of
the target initial population. Second, there is only one answer per institution. In line with Walton and Dawson (2001), we argue however that managerial perceptions are valuable, especially from DG&D who are privileged actors within business schools.
Third, the approach of former phenomena is not immune with a risk ofa posteriori
rationalizations by respondents. Moreover, a strategic issue like accreditation may even strengthen a bias towards positive answers. Nevertheless, our survey has been presented to the respondents as an independent research conducted by a university. As a result, the respondents proved to be critical towards the assessment of their school’s performance, as some questions received not favourable answers at all. This suggests that respondents answered the questionnaire quite openly. Finally, the analysis of the impact of a process would require building a method including a control group. Thus, it would have been interesting to measure the impact on schools that have successfully followed the process, as on schools that have failed to get the accreditation. However, although it is theoretically better to do it, the sensitivity of such cases makes data collection rather difficult.
Finally, we would like to suggest some perspectives for further research. First, it appears that the use of objective data, crossed with subjective data, would allow strengthening the results thanks to a data triangulation. Second, a qualitative longitudinal study will be better adapted to understand the impact of accreditation on cultural mechanisms of adaptation and integration, and their consequences on organizational effectiveness. More precisely, exploring cultural specificities, their positioning and evolution through the accreditation process seems to be an interesting research avenue. It is also interesting to observe that, when defining a dominant cultural trait – following the “cultural strength” approach – for each school in the sample, one gets 40 per cent of clans and 31 per cent of bureaucracies. Although the EQUIS accreditation seems to have developed the external side of organizational culture, most schools are still perceived by their dean or director general as being mainly focused on the internal side. This paradox would deserve more detailed research, with a special focus on likely a gap between image and culture. Third, Cameron’s dimensions should be enriched by items measuring the research activity that is at the heart of many international business schools.
References
Barney, J.B. (1986), “Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 656-65.
Bluedorn, A.C. (1980), “Cutting the Gordian knot: a critique of the effectiveness tradition in organization research”,Sociology and Social Research, Vol. 64, pp. 477-96.
Calori, R. and Sarnin, P. (1991), “Corporate culture and economic performance: a French study”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 49-74.
JMD
28,8
Cameron, K.S. (1978), “Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 604-32.
Cameron, K.S. (1986), “A study of organizational effectiveness and its predictors”,Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 87-112.
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999),Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Value Framework, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Cameron, K.S. and Sine, W. (1999), “A framework for organizational quality culture”,Quality Management Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 7-25.
Cameron, K.S. and Whetten, D.A. (1996),Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Agathon Press, New York, NY.
Campbell, J.P. (1977), “On the nature of organizational effectiveness”, in Goodman, P.S. and Pennings, J.M. (Eds), New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Chow-Chua, C., Goh, M. and Boon Wan, T. (2003), “Does ISO 9000 certification improve business performance?”,The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 936-53.
Connolly, T., Conlon, E.J. and Deutsch, S.J. (1980), “Organizational effectiveness: a multiple-constituency approach”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 211-7.
Cornuel, E. (2007), “Challenges facing business schools in the future”,Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 87-92.
Denison, D.R. (1990),Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness, Wiley, New York, NY. Denison, D.R. and Mishra, A. (1995), “Toward a theory of organizational culture and
effectiveness”,Organization Science, Vol. 6, pp. 204-23.
Gordon, G.G. and DiTomaso, N. (1992), “Predicting corporate performance from organizational culture”,Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 783-98.
Harvey, L. (2004), The Power of Accreditation: Views of Academics, European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, Helsinki.
Hedmo, T. (2004), “Rule-making in the transnational space – the development of European accreditation of management education”, Doctoral Thesis No. 109, Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala.
Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R. (1997), “Does implementing an effective TQM program actually improve operating performance? Empirical evidence from firms that have won quality awards”,Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 9, pp. 1258-74.
Julian, S.D. and Ofori-Dankwa, J.C. (2006), “Is accreditation good for the strategic decision making of traditional business schools?”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 225-33.
Kwan, P. and Walker, A. (2003), “Positing organizational effectiveness as a second-order construct in Hong Kong higher education institutions”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 705-25.
March, J.G. and Sutton, R.I. (1997), “Organizational performance as a dependent variable”,
Organization Science, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 698-706.
Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1980), “A congruence model for organizational assessment”, in Lawler, E.E., Nadler, D.A. and Cammann, C. (Eds),Organizational Assessment, Wiley, New York, NY.
Organizational
culture and
effectiveness
Ouchi, G.O. (1980), “Markets, bureaucracies, and clans”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25, pp. 129-41.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978),External Control of Organizations, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Powell, T.C. (1995), “Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and
empirical study”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Proitz, T.S., Stensaker, B. and Harvey, L. (2004), “Accreditation, standards and diversity: an analysis of EQUIS accreditation reports”,Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 735-50.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbraugh, J. (1983), “A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis”,Management Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 363-77.
Romero, E.J. (2008), “AACSB accreditation: addressing faculty concerns”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 245-55.
Schein, E.H. (1985),Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Seashore, S.E. and Yuchtman, E. (1967), “Factorial analysis of organizational performance”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 377-95.
Smart, J.C. (2003), “Organizational effectiveness of 2-year colleges: the centrality of cultural and leadership complexity”,Research in Higher Education, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 673-703. Smart, J.C. and St John, E.P. (1996), “Organizational culture and effectiveness in higher education:
a test of the culture type and strong culture hypotheses”,Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 219-41.
Smart, J.C., Kuh, G.D. and Tierney, W.G. (1997), “The roles of institutional cultures and decision approaches in promoting organizational effectiveness in two-year colleges”,The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 256-81.
Sorensen, J.B. (2002), “The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 70-91.
Thie´tart, R.-A. (2003),Me´thodes de recherche en management, Edition Dunod, Paris.
Walton, E.J. and Dawson, S. (2001), “Managers’perceptions of criteria of organizational effectiveness”,Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 173-99.
Westphal, J.D., Gulati, R. and Shortell, S.M. (1997), “Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 366-94.
Wilkins, A.L. and Ouchi, G.O. (1983), “Efficient cultures: exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 468-81.
Woodhouse, D. (2003), “Quality improvement through quality audit”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 133-40.
Zammuto, R.F. (2008), “Accreditation and the globalization of business”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 256-68.
About the authors
Christophe Lejeune is a PhD student in Strategic Management and Organization Science. He is Teaching Assistant at Louvain School of Management and Junior Researcher at the Center for Research in Entrepreneurial Change and Innovative Strategies (www.crecis.be). His research
JMD
28,8
interests deal with organizational changes and quality initiatives. Christophe Lejeune is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Alain Vas is a Professor in Strategy and Change Management at the Louvain School of Management, Universite´ catholique de Louvain, Belgium. He holds the KBL-CBC Research Chair in Change Management at the Universite´ catholique de Louvain. He has a PhD in Management Sciences at Paris XII University, France. He is member of the Center for Research in Entrepreneurial Change and Innovative Strategies (www.crecis.be). His research interests are in the areas of organizational change, knowledge creation and transfer, organizational innovation and competitive advantage. He has authored several refereed publications in international conferences and academic journals.
Organizational
culture and
effectiveness
741
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:[email protected] Or visit our web site for further details:www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
