Openness and decision making in the search for a university provost

Eisenberg, Eric M.; Murphy, Alexandra K.; Andrews, Linda Lee

doi:10.1080/03637759809376432

Cited by 33 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We view the Eisenberg et al (1998) study as congruent with Parker's argument that organizational subcultures are primarily-if not purely-emergent artifacts of discursive performance (see also Hylmo & Buzzanell, 2002). This study also demonstrates that communication scholars using Martin's metatheory should not view discourse as only a cognitive resource used for sensemaking by organizational members.…”

Section: Solutionssupporting

confidence: 77%

“…2 We focus here on their orientation to Martin's metatheory of organizational culture (see Frost et al, 1991;Martin, 1992Martin, , 2002Martin & Meyerson, 1988;Martin & Siehl, 1983;Meyerson & Martin, 1987;Siehl & Martin, 1984). 3 Associated themes may be traced in two genres of organizational communication scholarship: (a) empirical studies using the metatheory to generate research questions and warrant knowledge claims (e.g., Considine, 2004;Eisenberg, Murphy, & Andrews, 1998;Hoffman & Medlock-Klyukovski, 2004;Hylmo & Buzzanell, 2002;Witmer, 1997) and (b) textbooks, handbooks, case study collections, and book reviews that assess its value for organizational communication scholarship (e.g., Brummans & Putnam, 2003;Eisenberg & Goodall, 1993;Eisenberg & Riley, 2001;Keyton, 2005;Mumby, 1994;Putnam, 2003;Sypher, 1990).…”

Section: Resonant Projects: Assessment and Use Of Joanne Martin's Metmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Checking the Map: Critiquing Joanne Martin's Metatheory of Organizational Culture and Its Uses in Communication Research

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Joanne Martin's scholarship has significantly influenced the study of organizational culture by communication scholars. Martin's recent metatheory seeks to ''map'' the ''terrain'' of perspectives commonly used to study organizational culture and argues for the use of multiple perspectives to produce more fruitful research. While acknowledging the benefits of this metatheory, we critique 2 of its problematic elements. Both arise from Martin's claims about the phenomena of organizational culture and the various perspectives through which they might be known. The first problem involves Martin's decoupling of ontology and epistemology, as well as her subsequent oscillation between 2 conflicting clusters of ''onto-epistemological'' claims. Partly as a result, Martin also overemphasizes the ideational dimensions of organizational culture, thereby inhibiting analysis of its production in and through communication. These problems may negatively affect how communication scholars conceptualize organizational cultural phenomena and analyze data. To mitigate these problems, we offer 2 readings derived from social constructionism, poststructuralism, and critical realism. These readings aid communication scholars in successfully using Martin's metatheory. We conclude by considering the implications of this critique for the development of metatheory in communication.

show abstract

Section: Solutionssupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Resonant Projects: Assessment and Use Of Joanne Martin's Metmentioning

confidence: 99%

Checking the Map: Critiquing Joanne Martin's Metatheory of Organizational Culture and Its Uses in Communication Research

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These models highlight the disconnectedness, unclear goals, professional federations, and environmental influences that impact colleges and universitiesmaking them far from an integrated ideal (Newman, 1875). Additionally, the empirical findings of culture support the differentiation and fragmentation approach, as well as the utility of viewing culture through multiple perspectives (Eisenberg, Murphy, & Andrews, 1998;Harman, 1989).…”

Section: Summary Of Empirical Findingsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Schein says, "The 'strength' or 'amount' of culture can be defined in terms of (1) the homogeneity and stability of group membership and (2) the length and intensity of shared experiences of the group. If a stable group has had a long, varied, intense Chaffee and Tierney (1988) Clark (1970, 1972) Dill (1982 Hartley (2003) Masland (1985) Sporn ( ) Tierney (1988 Competing values research Adkinson (2005) Cameron and Ettington (1988) Cameron andFreeman (1991) Fjortoft andSmart (1994) Smart (2003) Smart and St. John (1996) Smart et al (1997) Smart and Hamm (1993a, 1993b) Zammuto and Krakower (1991 Faculty differentiation Becher (1989) Clark (1963a) Clark (1987 Goulder (1957) Lodahl and Gordon (1972) Snow (1959) Toma (1997 Administrative versus faculty subcultures Etzioni (1964) Feldman (1987 Lunsford (1968) Swenk (1999) Cohen and March (1974) Silver (2003) Weick (1983) Studies using multiple perspectives Harman (1989) Eisenberg et al (1998 history (i.e. if it has had to cope with many difficult survival problems and has succeeded), it will have strong and highly differentiated culture" (1984, p. 7).…”

Section: Summary Of Empirical Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Perspectives of Academia: Toward a Model of Cultural Complexity

Smerek

2010

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Eisenberg, Murphy, and Andrews (1998) provide an interesting view of decision making in the search for a university provost. However, governance is not all top down.…”

Section: Administration and Facultymentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership and Governance

Rouse¹

2016

Universities as Complex Enterprises

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a diverse flow of decisions and requests within the multilevel architecture of universities. The ecosystem level reinforces the values and norms of the overall enterprise while also deciding on policies and allocating resources. Campuses, colleges, schools, and departments also decide on policies and allocate resources, as well as approve hiring, promotion, and tenure of faculty members, based on recommendations emerging from the process and practice levels. As discussed in Chapter 7, there are processes for hiring, promotion, and tenure that are usually carefully followed to avoid subsequent objections. There are also processes for approving curricula and courses, scheduling courses and classrooms, and so on.All of the above is facilitated via a mixture of leadership and governance. Leadership facilitates creating the vision, choosing directions, and securing and allocating resources. Without a good measure of top-down leadership, typical academic cultures would lead to a fragmented enterprise that tried to be all things to all people. As elaborated in the next section, success depends on leaders not becoming just managers. University faculty members can be inspired by good leadership, but alienated by strong management.Governance is the process whereby decisions get made. Universities typically operate via shared governance between the administration and board of trustees or regents and the faculty. The administration and board govern securing and allocating resources for budgets, facilities, etc. The faculty governs curricula and courses, awarding of degrees, and hiring, promotion, and tenure. The faculty governs in the sense that they make recommendations to the administration and board. Usually, but not always, the recommendations are approved.

show abstract

Openness and decision making in the search for a university provost

Cited by 33 publications

References 9 publications

Checking the Map: Critiquing Joanne Martin's Metatheory of Organizational Culture and Its Uses in Communication Research

Checking the Map: Critiquing Joanne Martin's Metatheory of Organizational Culture and Its Uses in Communication Research

Cultural Perspectives of Academia: Toward a Model of Cultural Complexity

Leadership and Governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About