This mixed-methods study investigated the different perspectives between faculty, staff, adjunct instructors, and administrators utilizing the Competing Values Framework developed by Cameron & Quinn (2011). The quantitative portion of this study analyzed how each employee type viewed the institution’s current culture and how these perceptions were similar or dissimilar to the preferred culture. The qualitative portion, on the other hand, aimed at understanding each group’s viewpoints on the university’s ability to achieve its mission and purpose, adapt and change, clearly communicate, and to effectively lead. These insights were necessary for the researcher to gain insight into the institution’s culture beyond the scores derived from the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI).
The results from this study revealed the perceptions of the current and preferred cultural assessments were not significantly different between the various employee types. The qualitative data, however, revealed that the institution was in a state of transition and there was an overall lack of consensus between employees on the mission, purpose, and future direction of the institution. These underlying issues were hindering the institution’s ability to successfully drive change. The results from this study highlighted difficulties faced in change management strategies and agreement in cultural assessments did not equate to agreement in driving changes.
|Advisor:||Nasser, Roger "Mitch"|
|Commitee:||Long, John, Plunkett, John|
|School Location:||United States -- Missouri|
|Source:||DAI-A 82/3(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Higher Education Administration, Educational sociology|
|Keywords:||Change management, Competing values framework, Cultural assessments|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be