Administration in Higher Education: Making the Most of Ambiguity

23 Pugh, D. S., D. J. Hickson, C. R. Hinings, and C. Turner. "Dimensions of Organizational Structures." Administrative Science Quarterly. 14 (March 1968) 65-105. Spurr, Stephen H. "Organization of the Liberal Arts in the Large Universi­ ty." Journal of Higher Education. (January 1968) 11-22. Van de Ven, Andrew H., Andre Delbcq, and Richard Koening, Jr., "Determinants of Coordination Modes Within Organizations." American Sociological Review. 41 (April 1976) 322-338. ADMINISTRATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION: MAKING THE MOST OE AMBIGUITY George Ecker The Ohio State University Traditional views of organization and administration are purposeful. Barnard's classic The Functions of the Executive captures this sense of pur­ pose in defining a formal organization as "a system of consciously coordina­ ted activities or forces of two or more persons" (1938, p. 73). Clarity of purpose dictates the form that the conscious coordination of activity will take. Blau and Scott argue that the distinguishing characteristic of organi­ zations is that they have been formally established for the explicit purpose of achieving certain goals (1962, p. 1). An able administration promotes the effective accomplishment of objectives with a minimum of cost. Demands for organizational accountability are demands for effectiveness and efficiency. Good business needs to know how much productivity derives from how many dol­ lars spent. But colleges and universities are not businesses, nor can they be run as businesses are run. This is not to say that administrators in higher educa­ tion should not employ some administrative principles and techniques used in businesses and other organizations for the sake of efficiency. On the con­ trary, colleges and universities need to be business-like in how they behave. But leaders and administrators in colleges and universities need to realize how colleges and universities differ from businesses, and take those differ­ ences into account in giving direction to organizational purpose. Recent contributions to the literature on organizations are important for our understanding of colleges and universities and the nature of effective administration within them. These contributions offer images of educational organizations as "organized anarchies" (Cohen, March, and Olsen, 1972) and "loosely-coupled systems" (Weick, 1976). These terms suggest that admini­ strators in higher education may be faced with a considerable degree of ambi­ guity. What, specifically, is meant by these newer organizational images and what strategies can administrators adopt to effectively guide such organiza­ tions? Organized Anarchy The term "organized anarchy" is not one to bandy lightly with members of the board. "Organized anarchy" does not evoke feelings of purposeful con­ trol. On the contrary "organized anarchy," coined by Cohen, March, and Olsen, describes organizations characterized by (1) problematic preferences, (2) unclear technology, and (3) fluid participation. "Problematic preferences" means that the goals of organized anarchies are unclear. 24 In the organization it is difficult to impute a set of preferences to the decision situation that satisfies the standard consistency requirements for a theory of choice. The organization operates on the basis of a variety of inconsistent and ill-defined preferences. It can be des­ cribed better as a loose collection of ideas than as a coherent structure; it discovers preferences through ac­ tion more than it acts on the basis of preferences (Co­ hen, March, Olsen, 1972, p. 1). Plainly put, the goals of colleges and universities are vague. Often euphemistically stated, these goals provide little direction for clear deci­ sion making. Heads nod emphatically and spirits are stirred by "excellence" and "educational quality" but attempts to define these terms operationally in real-wrold institutional contexts are not met with such ground swells of confidence. Excellence is pursued equally at Elko Community College, at Swarthmore, and at Ohio State. How should the goals of education in these three situations differ? That is not easy to answer. The second characteristic or property of organized anarchies is unclear technology. Although the organization manages to survive and even produce, its own processes are not understood by its mem­ bers. It operates on the basis of simple trial-and-error procedures, the residue of learning from the accidents of past experience, and pragmatic inventions of necessity (Cohen, March, and Olsen, 1972, p. 1). V i e do not understand enough about teaching and learning. These proces­ ses...