The Collegial Institution

Interaction amongst members in this type of institution is less formal, while hierarchy and structure are not held to the same level of import as in more highly structured environments. Faculty and administrators are equals serving similarly important roles in the decision making process. This type of institution believes in shared governance, in which the opinions and ideals of faculty carry equal or greater weight than the administration. These institutions are very much value based, in which the entire community shares agreed upon understandings of the mission, vision, and priorities of the organization. The symbolic frame described by Bolman and Deal would be more prevalent in this environment. Birnbaum suggests that certain rules should be followed if organizational leaders are to maintain their effectiveness: live up to the norms of the group, conform to group expectations, use established channels of communication, do not give an order that will not be obeyed, listen, reduce status differences, and encourage self-control. The dynamics related to the collegial institution are typically most present in private liberal arts colleges, but collegiality can vary meaningfully across institutions of the same type.

Consider the fact that, in addition to teaching, faculty carried the responsibility of administering the operation of early universities in our country, then you will better understand the long-standing tradition of faculty sharing governance responsibility, and how that is represented in today’s colleges and universities. This is not perfunctory to the organizational operational pattern of higher education institutions, but in many ways is central to getting things done. Many constituents’ ideals must be taken into account as decisions are made, but along with the board, none may be more important than the faculty. It is important to note a challenging situation that can arise within a collegial system is who or which group ultimately will make the decision on any given issue. While a great benefit is derived from having a strong faculty voice, that voice is not always collectively in agreement, with significant variations based upon the issue du jour.

The Bureaucratic Institution

The starting line to understand this type of institution is the organization. It provides an illustrated representation of how the organization operates. The lines between offices and people describe the flow of work and delineate authority. The larger the organization, and the “taller” its operation based on levels within the operation (and shown in an organizational chart), the more difficult it becomes to control messaging and maintain effective communication. Where an office or individual is located on the organization chart greatly influences who and how they interact with others.

Looking at colleges and universities from this perspective makes a great deal of sense as many have evolved to look more like fully functioning cities with all the complexities that go along with that. When you look around a college like Penn State University, take notice that much more is offered than just an academic experience. Students have the capacity to live on campus, eat their meals in dining halls that include everything from Starbucks to Chick-Fil-A, receive medical care at the related hospitals, fly out of the university operated airport, and work out in state of the art recreation facilities – all without leaving campus. Operationally, the organization is very complex and a bureaucratic structure can provide some semblance of order; however, this would give too much credit to the formal power structure represented by reporting lines, whereas in reality the informal connections between people within the organization play an extremely vital role to getting business done and different coalition and factions will come together depending on the issue. 

The Political Institution

Who holds power and control is not merely a function of where one sits on the organization chart. The ability to influence and exchange valuable outcomes can bring significant political influence to those wielding such capability. Conflict is natural in this system, and the ability to negotiate and come to terms on challenging situations requires a great deal of individual or collective group political power. Power exists between parties because they are dependent on each other to achieve desired organizational outcomes. During times of abundant resources coming to terms on allocation of funds is a much easier task; however, when the opposite occurs lines are drawn in which groups as well as individuals push their agendas in an effort to attain that which is needed to pursue their preferred strategies. Not all groups have the same level of power within the organization, and not everyone concerns themselves with all matters. As such, varying participants become involved some of the time during situations that are relevant or of interest to them.

In a political institution, which most universities are, shared governance is oftentimes desired, if not a required way of conducting business. Decisions are rarely made unilaterally by university administration but rather in partnership with faculty councils, committees, and advisory boards. This enables the university to bring together faculty with varied expertise to bear on any given issue, ideally resulting in the best possible outcome. Also, decisions typically result when those with the ability to influence others prevail in garnering buy in to their ideas or ways of thinking. An increasing challenge confronting the political institution is the rising influence of outside actors, such as the federal and state government as well as donors, alumni, and accrediting bodies. The demands that these actors have placed on universities for accountability, transparency, and expectations for rapidity of response to inquiries posed by legislators have eroded the strength of shared governance within a political system.

The Anarchical Institution

To begin, this type of institution represents organized anarchy. The rules of engagement, the roles of leadership, the manner in which goals are established are oftentimes counter to traditionally understood organization governance structures. Three characteristics present in an anarchical institution include problematic goals, unclear technology, and fluid participation. This does not mean that patterns, structures, roles, and rules are not present. In fact, these institutions are typically very well organized with a strong culture that predicts behaviors and outcomes. This culture brings clarity to the organized anarchy, as decisions become quite routine. The concept of organized anarchy was brought to prominence by Cohen and March in their book Leadership and Ambiguity (1986) which detailed their study of college presidents.