Examining Multiple Organizational
Identity Alignment: A Comparison of
University and College of Business
Mission Statements
Robert Robinson
Jeremy C. Short
Hans Hansen
G. Tyge Payne
Timothy B. Palmer
Background in Organizational Identity
 Previous research has often examined
universities or their colleges – but rarely both
 Colleges of business have been examined (e.g.,
Labianca, Fairbank, Andrevski, & Parzen 2009)
specifically regarding their identity
 Gioia & Thomas 1996 examined top management
teams and their understanding of organizational
identity at universities
 Albert & Whetten (1985) used a research
university as the specific example of an
organization with multiple identities
Mission Statements and Identity
 Mission statements allow organizations to
define their purpose, and in so doing, their
identity (Pearce 1982; Wheelen & Hunger
2004).
 An organization can outline the important
elements of its identity by stating goals,
values, services, products, and resources in
one document.
 Little research has examined multiple missions
in the same organization
Strategies for Managing Multiple Identities
 Pratt & Foreman (2000) outlined four strategies
regarding multiple identities within organizations,
but only two involved maintaining them:
compartmentalization and aggregation
 Compartmentalization essentially involves maintaining
completely separate identities
 Aggregation attempts to reconcile identities while still
preserving their distinctions
 Universities and their colleges would be expected
to aggregate
AACSB Accreditation
 Business schools are required to align their
missions with their parent universities:
 The mission statement is appropriate to higher
education for management and consonant with
the mission of any institution of which the school
is a part. The school periodically reviews and revises the
mission statement as appropriate. The review process
involves appropriate stakeholders. – from AACSB
Standard 1
Why Aggregation, Not Integration
 Albert & Whetten (1985) suggested that some
organizations use their divisions to respond to
different needs
 The college of business would respond to
stakeholders interested in new graduates with
certain skills such as marketing, finance,
accounting, management
 Instead of trying to respond to those needs in the
form of the university, the college of business
would form or more specific strategy and identity
What Happens When Differences Collide?
 Identity misalignment can lead to conflict over
resources (Pratt & Foreman 2000)
 Example:
 a business school seeking to develop a top tier MBA
program at a small university could draw resources
away from other programs
Research Questions
 Do universities and their colleges of business
exhibit different elements of identity?
 When they do, does the conflict adversely
affect performance?
Sample
 318 paired missions from AACSB accredited
colleges of business and their universities
Measure of Identity
 Pearce & David (1987) developed a typology of
eight key elements to include in missions:
(1) specification of target customers and markets
(2) identification of principal products or services
(3) identification of the use of technology
(4) expression of commitment to growth, survival, and
profitability
(5) specification of key elements of the organizational
philosophy
(6) identification of the organizational self-concept
(7) identification of the organization’s desired public
image
(8) identification of geographic domain.
Table 1 – Coding Definitions for Each Element
Mission Element
Coding Definition
The specification of target Who are the school’s customers? (e.g., graduate students,
customers and markets
undergraduate students, students defined by religious
orientation, or working professionals)
The identification of
principal
products/services
What are the school’s primary products or services? (e.g.,
broad-based definitions of educating, teaching, or focused
definitions such as online and executive programs)
The identification of core
technologies
Is the use of technology in program delivery specified?
(e.g., lecture, distance learning, or wireless. This
component does not address the content of curricula but
the delivery of programs)
The expression of
commitment to survival,
growth, and profitability
Is the school committed to performance objectives? (e.g.,
statements that express specific growth, ranking, or
enrollment goals or more general goals about continuous
improvement)
Table 1 (Continued)
Mission Element
Coding Definition
The specification of key
elements in the school’s
philosophy
What are the basic beliefs, values, and priorities?
(e.g., statements that express philosophical ideals, and
the importance of training for social responsibility)
The identification of the
school’s self-concept
What is the organization’s distinctive competence or
competitive advantage? (e.g., specific mention of
strengths, keys to success, or unique quality)
The identification of the
school’s desired public
image
Is the school responsive to social, community, and
environmental concerns? (e.g, express concern or
outreach towards to the greater community, state,
region, or ethical duties to the community at large
including “partnerships” and training)
The specification of
geographic domain
Where does the school compete? (e.g., statements that
define a geographic scope such as a local community,
city, state, or region)
Examples from Missions
Mission Element
Coding Definition
The specification of key
elements in the school’s
philosophy
“It chooses young men and women with the highest
qualities of intellect, character, and the promise of
future achievement” (Washington and Lee University)
The identification of
“Hofstra University's faculty is committed to
principal products/services excellence in teaching, scholarly research and
service.” (Hofstra University)
The identification of the
school’s desired public
image
“To develop technically sophisticated business leaders
who are prepared to guide their organizations in the
integration of technology” (Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute)
The expression of
commitment to survival,
growth, and profitability
“Research is at the heart of the scholastic life of our
school and is essential to the professional growth and
development of our faculty” (Boston University)
DICTION 5.0 – Content Analysis
 Moss, Short, Payne, & Lumpkin (2010)
adapted dictionaries for each of the eight
elements
 They augmented prior work by Morris (1994)
to develop word lists more specific to social
organizations (such as schools)
Measures of Performance
Kaplan and Norton (1992) developed the
balanced scorecard approach to evaluating
businesses on more than the bottom line
Gumbus (2005) adapted this approach to
evaluate schools
 Endowment per Faculty Member
 US News & World Report Undergraduate Ranking
for Universities and for Business Schools
Results – Table 3 Analysis of Mission Components
Mission
Component
#Universities
Articulating
Mission
Component
%Universities
Articulating
Mission
Component
#COB’s
Articulating
Mission
Component
% COB’s
Articulating
Mission
Component
# Both
Articulating
Mission
Component
% Both
Articulating
Mission
Component
Customer
280
88.05%
259
81.45%
233
73.27%
303
95.28%
305
95.91%
294
92.45%
Survival
199
62.58%
180
56.60%
120
37.74%
Technology
76
23.90%
80
25.16%
25
7.86%
School
Philosophy
267
83.96%
254
79.87%
217
68.24%
Self Concept
249
78.30%
275
86.48%
220
69.18%
Public Image
281
88.36%
255
80.19%
230
72.33%
Geography
280
88.05%
250
78.62%
232
72.96%
Product
Table 4 – Differences in Mission Content
#COB’s
Articulating
Mission
Component
Mission
Component
#Universities
Articulating
Mission
Component
Average
Diff.
Between –
Raw Scores
Customer
280
259
4.78
303
305
Survival
199
Technology
T-Test of
Difference
in Raw
Scores
Average
Diff.
Between –
Avg. Words
T-Test of
Average
Diff. in Avg.
Words
17.79*
0.02
20.91*
11.35
15.86*
0.04
18.80*
180
1.78
12.58*
0.01
11.85*
76
80
0.68
9.15*
0.00
8.60*
School
Philosophy
267
254
3.38
15.81*
0.02
4.21*
Self Concept
249
275
3.39
15.30*
0.02
20.45*
Public Image
281
255
4.11
18.94*
0.02
20.37*
Geography
280
250
4.76
14.95*
0.02
18.06*
Product
*P<.01
Table 5: Regression Models Relating
Mission Components to Performance
Mission Component
Endowment
University Rank COB Rank
Std. Coefficients Std. Coefficients Std. Coefficients
Customer
-0.01
0.00
0.03
Product
-.19*
-0.03
-.13**
Survival
-0.04
-0.00
0.11
0.05
-0.11
.21*
School Philosophy
.15**
0.05
.12**
Self Concept
-0.02
-0.02
0.04
Public Image
0.02
0.11
-0.06
-0.01
-0.11
-0.04
0.05
0.04
0.09
2.23**
1.48***
3.85*
Technology
Geography
R2
Model F
* P < .01, ** P<.05, *** Not Significant
Table 6 Comparisons of Performance:
Endowment per Faculty Member
Mission
Component
Customers
Both
Neither
$497,610
$1,102,200
University
Only
$476,655
Business
School Only
$415,747
Products
$446,847
$2,790,000
$1,971,800
$189,994
Technology
$340,177
$521,933
$752,557
$325,377
Survival
$577,855
$500,643
$432,660
$488,689
School
philosophy
Self-concept
$626,859
$194,397
$304,105
$227,511
$507,239
$944,246
$245,776
$500,773
Public image
$501,294
$1,355,700
$447,002
$320,773
geographic
domain
$492,466
$1,205,100
$369,499
$349,535
Table 6 Comparisons of Performance:
University Ranking
Mission
Component
Customers
Both
Neither
14.95
18.25
University
Only
19.89
Business
School Only
16.73
Products
15.55
30
35.78
5.36
Technology
13.32
17.81
16.67
10.16
Survival
10.97
15.71
16.13
25.93
School
philosophy
Self-concept
17.63
9.36
17.00
7.19
15.60
21.86
12.72
17.58
Public image
13.47
57.17
20.24
10.24
geographic
domain
14.67
27.85
16.04
19.00
Table 6 Comparisons of Performance:
College of Business Ranking
Mission
Component
Customers
Both
Neither
1.45
1.40
University
Only
1.23
Business
School Only
1.35
Products
1.37
1.43
2.11
2.01
Technology
2.01
1.29
1.43
1.53
Survival
1.83
1.03
1.10
1.36
School
philosophy
Self-concept
1.56
0.76
1.08
1.23
1.50
1.03
1.08
1.31
Public image
1.40
1.23
1.34
1.73
geographic
domain
1.42
1.06
1.22
2.18
Implications for Future Research
Further research into the link between multiple
identity alignment/conflict is warranted
A more qualitative approach to alignment/
conflict could clarify the relationship