The formation and promulgation of institutional ethos by new univ

Georgia Southern University Digital Commons@Georgia Southern Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of Spring 2018 The Formation and Promulgation of Institutional Ethos by New University Presidents Charles F. Ziglar Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.edu/etd Part of the Higher Education Commons Recommended Citation Ziglar, C. The Formation and Promulgation of Institutional Ethos by New University Presidents.

This dissertation (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of at Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@georgiasouthern.

THE FORMATION AND PROMULGATION OF INSTITUTIONAL ETHOS BY NEW UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS by CHARLES F. ZIGLAR (Under the Direction of Dr. Daniel Calhoun) ABSTRACT New university presidents face many challenges when leading an institution, and it seems a daunting professional effort to prepare for the contextual problems they will face (Alexander, 2014; Siegel, 2011). Recent episodes dealing with presidential tensions at universities illustrate the difficult issues new presidents face when entering an institution.

Birnbaum (1992) stated that new university presidents are most effective when they seek to offer an interpretation of institutional life using language, symbolism, and ritual. Research by Trachtenberg, Kauvar, and Bogue (2013) and Vyas (2013) noted that understanding the ethos of an institution is essential for effective presidential leadership. This research explores how new university presidents who have served at least one year and no more than three years in their first presidencies make meaning of institutional ethos and apply what they learn to frame the institution for the purpose of effective leadership. Van Manen’s hermeneutical phenomenological approach to quantitative research was utilized as the theoretical framework for this study.

Interviews with 4 new university presidents served as the data source for this study. This study found that the presidents, while operating within the unique context of the institution which they preside, attended to the concepts of organizational identity, organizational culture, and organization image when seeking to formulate and promulgate an institution’s ethos. Based on the findings of the study, implications for search committees, new university presidents, search firms, and campus communities are presented since each of these groups is potentially impacted. Finally, recommendations for further research are provided for individuals who are interested in further exploring matters related to institutional ethos and new university presidents.

INDEX WORDS: Higher education, University president, New university president, Institutional ethos, Organizational identity, Organizational culture, Organizational image, and Presidential leadership. THE FORMATION AND PROMULGATION OF INSTITUTIONAL ETHOS BY NEW UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS by CHARLES F., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1988 Ph., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1994 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Georgia Southern University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION STATESBORO, GEORGIA © 2018 CHARLES F. ZIGLAR All Rights Reserved 1 THE FORMATION AND PROMULGATION OF INSTITUTIONAL ETHOS BY NEW UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS by CHARLES F. ZIGLAR Major Professor: Daniel Calhoun Committee: Pamela Wells Thomas Koballa Electronic Version Approved: May 2018 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank those who contributed to this study.

Daniel Calhoun served as my dissertation chair and made significant contributions to this work. I am appreciative of his guidance and his timeliness throughout this process. Thomas Koballa took time away from his busy schedule as Dean of the College of Education to serve as a committee member. His careful reading of my prospectus and comments made during the defense helped to clarify the research question and focus the methodology.

Pamela Wells served as the methodologist for this study and provided valuable insights and encouragement for this novice researcher. Her support provided the confidence I needed to complete this task. Devon Jensen and Dr. Amelia Davis served as initial members of my committee.

I appreciate their help during the pre- prospectus phase of this study. I entered this program not knowing anyone in my doctoral cohort. I leave this program having made seven life-long friends and professional colleagues. Their unique lived experiences have given me a deeper appreciation of life and a profound respect for women in higher education.

Their encouragement during the dissertation phase of this program helped to push me across the finish line, long after they completed the journey. I look forward to the years ahead as we seek to apply what we have learned as leaders in higher education institutions. Finally, I am thankful for my wife, Carrie, who offered unwavering support for me during this journey. We faced many life challenges during this process.

She somehow managed the stress associated with having a husband pursue a second doctoral degree. This work is as much hers as it is mine. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .2 LIST OF TABLES .9 LIST OF FIGURES .10 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY.11 Background of the Study .16 Purpose of the Study .18 Significance of the Study .19 Definition of Terms.20 New University President .21 Chapter Summary and Outline of the Study .22 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .24 The Essentialist Paradigm of Social Actors .30 The Social Constructionist Paradigm.31 4 Identity as Enduring .31 Identity as Dynamic .32 The Linguistic Discursive Paradigm .34 Identity and Image .35 Organizational Identity and Higher Education Institutions .43 Organizational Culture and Organizational Identity .44 Levels of Organizational Culture .45 Organizational Culture and Higher Education .49 Definition of Ethos .49 Definition of Institutional Ethos .51 Institutional Ethos and Higher Education Institutions .52 Case Studies on Institutional Ethos and University Presidents .55 Case Study #1: Scott Scarborough .56 Case Study #2: Eileen Ely.58 Case Study #3: Simon Newman .63 New Presidential Leadership .65 Transition Issues and New Presidential Leadership .66 5 New University Presidents and Institutional Change .76 Purpose Statement and Research Question .76 Positionality of the Researcher .79 Orientation to Research.85 Participant Recruitment and Sampling .90 Reporting the Data .95 Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations .98 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS .101 Formation of an Understanding of Institutional Ethos .102 Formulation of an Institutional Ethos .103 Promulgation of the Institutional Ethos .112 Formation of an Understanding of Institutional Ethos .112 Formulation of an Institutional Ethos .114 Promulgation of the Institutional Ethos .124 Formation of an Understanding of Institutional Ethos .124 Formulation of an Institutional Ethos .125 Promulgation of the Institutional Ethos .133 Formation of an Understanding of Institutional Ethos .133 Formulation of an Institutional Ethos .135 Promulgation of Institutional Ethos .144 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .146 Discussion of Research Findings .146 Primary Research Question.151 Sub-Question One .151 Sub-Question Two .153 Sub-Question Three .155 Implications of this Study .157 New University Presidents .160 Recommendations for Further Study .161 Reflections on this Study. Email to Presidents.

Informed Consent Form .188 9 LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 General Characteristics of Presidents .101 10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2. Relationship of Identity, Image and Culture to Ethos .64 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Presidential transitions have a major impact on colleges and universities (Sanaghan, 2007). Eckel and Kezar (2011) noted that a university president is expected to be a leader who can navigate the complex higher education reality of academics, politics, mediation, and finances. In particular, new university presidents face many challenges with leading an institution, and it seems a daunting professional effort to prepare for the contextual problems they will face (Alexander, 2014; Siegel, 2011).

This complex reality is heightened even more for this population as presidents are under pressure to bring about immediate positive change while seeking to understand the institutions they have been chosen to lead. This challenge, according to Smerek (2011), involves trying to be the president while at the same time learning how to be the president. Birnbaum (1992) stated that new university presidents are most effective when they seek to offer an interpretation of institutional life using language, symbolism, and ritual. Trachtenberg, Kauvar, and Bogue (2013) noted that when new university presidents arrive on their campuses they are welcomed by a multitude of constituencies, each with a legitimate claim to be heard on issues such as institutional purpose, policy, and performance.

A university president shares information with constituent groups both inside and outside the organization, frames the information that is shared, and interprets the mission of the institution (Garza Mitchell, 2012). In other words, a new university president is responsible for conveying the institutional ethos. Recent episodes dealing with presidential tensions at universities illustrate the difficult issues new presidents face when entering an institution. The University of Iowa’s search for a new president made news when it was discovered that members of the Iowa Board of Regents 12 who were not on the presidential search committee were involved in the recruitment of a former IBM executive (Kelderman, 2015a).

Faculty members complained that the candidate, J. Bruce Harreld, did not have the higher education leadership experience needed to direct a top research university (McIntire, 2015). A standout moment of the search process occurred on the first day of Harreld’s presidency when a local clothing shop carried t-shirts with a logo resembling the Starbuck’s logo that read “Univ Iowa Inc. A corporate take on a liberal arts college” (Kelderman, 2015b).

In a different case, the resignation of R. Bowen Loftin as chancellor of the University of Missouri at Columbia appeared to come about as a result of student protests. Behind the scenes, however, was a coup led by nine deans who were working to force the resignation of Loftin as a result of his inability to create an environment where shared leadership was valued and where threats to fire employees, specifically deans, were common (Stripling, 2015b). In a third case, a Kent State faculty member attended an emergency meeting where the Committee on Administrative Officers was interviewing a candidate for the presidency, Beverly J.

During the interview, activity was heard outside the meeting room. The adjacent room was being prepared for the announcement of the next university president—Beverly J. Committee members were never given the names of the finalists nor asked for input (Stripling, 2015a). These three incidents are just a sample of the national presence surrounding the hiring and leadership of new university presidents.

New university presidents can arrive on campus and find themselves in situations that are less than ideal. How they handle these situations will affect their ability to provide leadership both in the short term and the long term. Understanding the institutional ethos is vital to a new university president’s success. Institutional ethos relates directly to leadership because it represents the symbols, rituals, and character of the institution.

As new university presidents arrive on the campuses they will 13 lead, it is important for them to grasp a sense of the institutional ethos quickly in order to understand how the decisions they make align with the rituals, traditions, and symbols that are important to the institution (Siegel, 2011). In terms of educational academic inquiry, it is important to understand how a new university president assesses institutional ethos and uses that information to promulgate an institutional ethos that will frame the institution. This understanding is important because it informs the decision-making process of new university presidents as they establish agendas for change. If university presidents are to be successful in leading their institutions, they must pay particular attention to the institutional ethos.

Background of the Study Institutional ethos can be difficult to discern, and the lack of clarity related to a definition of the concept makes difficult to identify in the literature related to higher education (Harris, 2013). For instance, Bolman and Deal (1997) identified four frames that successful leaders can use in the decision-making process. The structural frame focuses on rules and structures within the organization. The human resource frame takes into account people and their needs within the organization.

The political frame examines the process within an organization by which resources, power, and influence are distributed. The symbolic frame examines the culture, myths, and rituals of the organization.