Differences in the Perception of Organizational Culture in Non-Public Universities in Poland by Academic and Administrative Staff – A Study Based on Cameron and Quinn's Model

There is a considerable amount of literature on various factors that have impact on the motivation to work, well-being, and professional development of workers employed in HEIs. It should be stressed, first of all, that in market-driven economies, HEIs are nowadays under a growing pressure to become more productive and accountable (Blackmore and Kandiko, 2011). As far as the situation of academic workers is concerned, it results in their conviction that they have to spend “disproportionate amounts of time on developing research proposals and securing grant funds at the expense of other activities” (Wade and Demb, 2009, p.6).

The growing pressure on competition and increasing demand on accountability of the university and its employees also bring about attempts to introduce business work practices such as performance staff appraisal based mainly on measurable research performance indicators. As Sułkowski, et al. (2020) noticed, in the case of academic workers, such changes may lead to unintended consequences such as replacement of fruitful collaboration with other researchers on grand scientific projects with a rat race concentration on merely publishing more papers than colleagues.

Using the instruments of performance-related pay in the university environment was also criticized by Blackmore and Kandiko (2011), who pointed at the fact that they might not be fully effective as academic workers are motivated by factors other than money, for example, the desire to become “intellectual leaders.” Also, Sułkowski, et al. (2020) noticed that “the traditional culture of the university is based to a large extent on Merton's CUDOS (communism, universalism, disinterestedness, organized skepticism) ethos reflected in individual commitment, scientific team-work, dedication and intrinsic motivation over extrinsic rewards of the academic staff” (p.1). Therefore, though regular performance appraisal practices are being adopted in HEIs in the Western world, they are still met with mixed feelings and are regarded as a controversial topic (Sułkowski, et al., 2020).

Also, studies conducted in a number of Australian universities showed that marketization, or managerialism (i.e. corporatized managerial practices) of higher education, was met with reluctance, and “academics felt market behaviour mechanisms and business-related principles were compromising the primary goals of teaching, learning and scholarship and exerting a strong negative effect on academic morale and productivity” (Winter and Sarros, 2002, p.3). Lecturers also feel that they are overburdened with work and stress, as they are expected to be highly productive teachers and researchers at the same time (Maslen, 2000).

Also, the results of other studies conducted in Australian universities backed these findings. As Fredman and Doughney concluded, “there is a broad feeling that marketisation has not delivered the promised freedom and flexibility, but further bureaucratism and control, as well as increasing pressures to work harder” (2012, pp.56–57). Similar observations concerning managerialism of higher education emerged from studies conducted in Sweden (Ekman, et al., 2018), the Netherlands (Enders and Westerheijden, 2014), and the UK (Deem, 1998).

Respondents from all the three countries showed “a clear dislike of the growing administration, the increasing competition for research funding, the obligation to fill in time consuming grant applications and the heavier workload. Examples of frustration and stress are omnipresent. (…) While a few respondents acknowledged that some amount of managerialism in the right context could be helpful, the actual effect is that it works against its own intentions” (Teelken, 2011, pp.287–288).

An example of a misguided introduction of performance-based pay system comes from Sweden, where money is paid for every student who passes a course year. This has a negative impact on the quality of education, as in order to generate more funding, the examinations have become easier to pass (Teelken, 2011). It should be stressed once again here that the problem of combining the two roles – teacher and researcher – and ensuring fair judgment of both the components of work of an academic worker is yet another one to solve. Also, it seems that, in general, the (time-consuming) teaching part is considered as less valuable and important (Quinn, 2012).

A number of interesting observations concerning the workplace environment in Polish universities were made by Kwiek (2015) and concerned differences in age and seniority among Polish academic workers. He drew attention to the fact that the Polish academy is a “heavily generationally divided institution,” “a battlefield between the ‘independent’ and the ‘subordinate’ academic ranks (the turning point being Habilitation),” and that “the current collegiality can be viewed as the collegiality of the seniors, to which juniors have only limited access.”

Kwiek also observed the advent of changes in the academic reality in Poland, such as “an increasing interest in the internationalization of research, the mounting competition for research funds, global (rather than national) science as a reference point in research, and the widely shared belief in objective criteria; the dream of meritocracy ousting the reality of subjective judgments, and partner-like relationships based on scientific authority ousting feudal-like relationships between the two academic castes, as in decades past” (Kwiek, 2015, p.1371).

Also, in the new, market-oriented reality based on competition for research funding, it is the younger generation of academic workers who will have to adapt faster to the changing demands and spend much more time and effort on high-quality research to be able to compete with their Western European counterparts, which does not seem an easy task, as, in general, in Poland, academics spend much more time on teaching and much less time on research than the academic workers in Western Europe.

As far as the situation of administrative workers is concerned, three key observations seem to emerge from the analyses conducted. The first observation is that, in general, administrative workers in all types of HEIs would welcome a work environment that is team oriented and free from interpersonal conflict. Also, the role of one's supervisor is very important. The likely sources of administrative stress and conflict comprise issues such as turnover, job security, interpersonal relations with supervisors and colleagues, and lack of personal respect (Volkwein and Parmley, 2000).

The second observation is that the administrative employees play an important role in the functioning and development of HEIs (Baltaru and Soysal, 2018; Karlsson and Ryttberg, 2016; Brandenburg, 2016; Gray, 2015; Kuo, 2009). The third observation is that administrative workers feel that the vital role they play is underestimated (Cywińska, 2019; Gornitzka and Larsen, 2004). For example, as far as the staff performance appraisal system in HEIs is concerned, according to Cywińska (2019), two totally different approaches have been adopted to evaluate the work of the two groups of workers.

The criteria for academic staff evaluation are clearly specified and include periodical evaluation of the quality of teaching and the quality of scientific activity. In contrast, there are no clear or unified standards on evaluation of the work of administrative staff. Moreover, due to their service role in the organization, they tend to be perceived as a source of costs and problems, which, in turn, leads to their organizational “invisibility.” Cywińska (2019) also points at the problem of dual authority, that is, a lot of administrative workers have two bosses, for example, the chancellor and the dean (Cywińska, 2019, pp.149–150).

Also, the common, overwhelming feeling is that, though their work is indispensable for the mere functioning and development of the university, they are treated as second-class, auxiliary workers. As Cywińska remarked, even the official term used to categorize administrative workers, that is, “non-academic workers,” has a pejorative meaning (Cywińska, 2019, p.149). Also, their position in the reality of the academic world in Poland can be summed as “necessary, invisible, indispensable” (Mielczarek-Taica, 2020).

Organizational culture has been the subject of many studies for several decades. A number of definitions, concepts, and models of what can be summed up as “the personality of the organization” have been developed. Early classical definitions described organizational culture as “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way you perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (Schein, 2010, p.18) or “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others” (Hofstede, et al., 2010, p.6).

As Dębski, et al. noticed (2020), contemporary studies on organizational culture examine a wide array of factors and relations, for example, the impact of supportive organizational culture on the success of cutting-edge technology, such as cloud computing usage in a company (Gangvar, 2017), the interdependence of friendship among workers, transformational leadership, and organizational culture (Kohan, et al., 2018), or the challenges related to merging different organizational cultures in virtual teams (Bechir, 2017).

As far as studies on organizational culture in higher education are concerned, they date back to 1960s, though they were not numerous or comprehensive, as in 1988, Tierney (1988) noted the lack of cultural research on higher education and signaled the need to conduct studies on that matter (Tierney, 1988). The early works primarily concerned student cultures (Becker, 1963; Clark, 1972; Davie and Hare, 1956), organizational sagas as tools for institutional identity (Clark, 1972), or the study of academic cultures (Becher, 1981; Freedman, 1979; Gaff and Wilson, 1971).

As for the contemporary research on organizational culture in higher education, it is worth mentioning the works of Ferreira and Hill (2008), who concentrated on the differences between the non-public and public sectors, and Dzimińska, et al. (2020), who examined the interconnections between trust and quality culture at HEIs (Dziminska, et al., 2018).

Numerous attempts have been made to create models defining the components of organizational culture. In the classical model created by Schein, organizational culture is divided into three different levels: artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions (Schein, 2010, p.24). Also, Denison focused on the link between organizational culture and bottomline performance measures such as profitability, growth, quality, innovation, and customer and employee satisfaction (1990).

Another model, designed by Cameron and Quinn (1999), called the Competing Values Framework, puts forward the assumption that the nature of organizational culture is based on two dimensions: internal/external focus and stability/flexibility structure. Taken together, these two dimensions create four quadrants that represent four sets of values that guide organizational tasks of environmental management and internal integration. What should be stressed is that the underlying dimensions present contrasting values. For example, organizations not only need to be adaptable and flexible, but also stable and controlled. There needs to be not only growth, resource acquisition, and external support, but also tight internal information management and formal communication. The framework not only suggests an emphasis on the value of human resources, but also emphasizes planning and goal setting.

The four cultural types presented in the four quadrants of the framework are: clan culture, adhocracy culture, market culture, and hierarchy culture. Clan culture workplace is like an extended family and it rates highly loyalty, commitment, and teamwork. Adhocracy culture workplace is dynamic and risk-taking; the main values include experimentation, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Market culture is a result-oriented workplace that focuses on competition and success. Hierarchy culture, a very formalized and structured workplace, is characterized by the predominance of procedures, formal rules, stability, and predictability.

The model and the accompanying validated research method, the OCAI developed by Cameron and Quinn to define the dominant type of the organizational culture in organizations, were chosen as the research tools for this study as they have been successfully used in examining organizational culture in many branches of the industry, for example, logistics (Ližbetinová, et al., 2016), local governments (Marek, 2014), healthcare (Bing-You and Varaklis, 2016; Frey, et al., 2016), and construction industry (Teräväinen, et al., 2018). It was also used in the previous studies on organizational culture in higher education and, as it has been already mentioned, the OCAI method has also been used to study the organizational culture in HEIs worldwide.

The findings show that cultures vary in different countries and institutions (Gaus, 2019). For example, clan culture was both the dominant and preferred culture at the Ohio State University, in a number of Christian HEIs in the United States, and in the District of Columbia, though some of them reported a dominant type of “adhocracy” (Berrio, 2003; Obenchain, et al., 2004). Universities in Slovenia in contrast, had a highly developed market culture (Omerzel, et al., 2011), whereas at the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics in Russia, the prevailing culture was hierarchy culture, though the majority of students wished to change it to either adhocracy or market (Vasyakin, et al., 2016). As far as the Polish universities are concerned, studies conducted by Dębski, et al. (2020) signaled that public universities had a predominantly hierarchy culture, whereas at the non-public universities the dominant type was market culture.

In the research, the OCAI developed by Cameron and Quinn was used. The research was carried out in three non-public universities operating in Warsaw, Poland

The authors of the study did not obtain permission to publish the names of the universities participating in the study.

The participants were asked to distribute 100 points over four alternatives that corresponded to the four culture types (i.e. clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy). They judged six dimensions of their university: (1) dominant characteristics, (2) organizational leadership, (3) management of employees, (4) organizational glue, (5) strategic emphases, and (6) criteria of success

It is worth noting that the questionnaire used in the study did not allow respondents to provide their own answers. Their only task was to distribute the points to the given alternatives.

The results of the questionnaire are presented in Figs 1–6. The black solid lines represent the academic staff and the black dotted lines represent the administrative staff. Fig. 1 shows the values related to the current dominant features of the universities. The results allow us to conclude that the academic staff see universities as organizations that are focused on goals, targets, and competition (market culture). In turn, the administrative staff perceive universities as organizations that are focused on internal support, stability, and control (hierarchy culture).

Figure 1

Organizational leadership was the second dimension in the OCAI questionnaire. The results are shown in Fig. 2. In the opinion of the academic staff, the leaders (rectors, deans, chancellors) have the qualities of hard drivers, producers, and competitors (market culture: 32 points). It is worth noting that, according to the opinion of the administrative staff, the leaders are considered to be coordinators and organizers (hierarchy culture: 34 points).

Figure 2

With regards to the third dimension and the management of employees, the majority of respondents (both academic and administrative staff) chose clan culture (Fig. 3). This option focuses on teamwork, consensus, and participation. It should be noted that the difference between clan culture and hierarchy culture does not exceed 4 points. It means that security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships are also used in the process of management of employees at non-public universities.

Figure 3

Fig. 4 presents the fourth examined area – organizational glue. It represents what consolidates an organization. In the group of academic staff, market culture prevails. Under this option, aggressiveness and winning are common themes. Interestingly, for administrative staff, clan culture scored the highest number of points.

Figure 4

It is worth noting that the representatives of academic staff perceive non-public universities as organizations that emphasize competitive actions and achievement. Attaining targets and winning in the marketplace are dominant. These are strategic emphases according to market culture (Fig. 5). In the group of administrative staff, hierarchy culture, which emphasizes stability and enterprise functioning, prevails. Performance, control, and operating flexibility are the important factors for the achievement of strategic goals.

Figure 5

Success criteria were the last area of interest to be analyzed. The results are given in Fig. 6. Once again, for the academic staff, the option that dominated is market culture (33 points). Also, for the administrative staff, market culture prevails (27 points). They define success on the basis of winning in the marketplace. Competitive market leadership is crucial for them.

Figure 6