CORPORATE CULTURE, ORGANISATIONAL

COMMITMENT, AND QUALITY ASSURACNE IN HIGHER

EDUCATION
Today, more than ever before, higher education is recognized as a means by which
the human resources of nations are developed for cultural, economic, political and
social development. For example, higher education produces the scientists who do
basic research and generate new things. Higher education produces the scientists
who do applied research and come out with new products and techniques. Higher
education produces the scientists who adopt and adapt appropriate technologies
from elsewhere. Higher education also produces the diplomats, the envoys and the
ministers who represent nations at international fora. Business at such fora,
definitely, are governed by certain laws, rules, regulations, conventions and
etiquettes which are all acquired through higher education. Above all higher
education produces the teachers and educational managers who contribute to
quality human resource development at all levels of education.

Apparently, it was in recognition of these realities that Ibukun (1997) pointed out
that the relevance of higher education today is that it provides the right numbers of
human resources that are so crucial in the development of nations. It is also in
recognition of the role of higher education in national development that nations
today spend large chunks of their budgets on that sector. Indeed Ajayi and
Ekundayo (2007) have rightly stated that governments do not consider the funds
allocated to higher education as mere expenditures, but as long-term investments in
human resources.

Today all levels of education have assumed a global character, and as such, the
narrow focus on the focal nation is giving way to a focus on globally-oriented
contents, practice and management (Middlehurst, 2001). Higher education in
particular is becoming more and more a commodity at the global market, following
the increasing mobility of scholars and students across national borders. Ali
Mazrui (1994) refers to this phenomenon as horizontal interpenetration and vertical
counter-penetration.

1
Today higher educational institutions aim at producing graduates who have
knowledge, skills, qualities and attitudes that will enhance their capacity for
mobility at both the local and global markets. The graduates’ performance must be
of comparable quality and standard as those produced elsewhere so that they can
easily find placement in foreign institutions of higher learning (ENQA, 2006).
Besides, higher educational institutions open their doors to cross-border scholars
and students. Therefore without a higher education system global in character, that
commonality and ease of mobility cannot materialize. Thus any institution of
higher learning that seeks recognition in the global community must put
mechanisms in place to ensure commonality in content, practice, management and
quality. The institution of effective internal quality assurance systems that are
consistent with international standards is therefore absolutely necessary.

Higher educational institutions as organizations and human institutions as that are

made up of complex webs of individuals and groups with diverse orientations,
perceptions, values, goals and aspirations. Getting all such individuals and groups
committed to a vigorous pursuit of the quality standards aspired for is a herculean
task for leaders of higher educational institutions. What effective measures can
leaders of such institutions put in place to ensure that quality assurance is accepted
and pursued by all or most consequential actors? A sustained organizational
commitment of all or most actors seems to be an answer.

ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT

Organisational commitment as seen by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) is the degree

to which an employee identifies with the goals and values of the organization, and
is willing to put in efforts to help the organization to achieve these goals.
Muthuveloo and Rose (2005) also see it as the willingness of employees to accept
the goals and values of the organization, and to work towards the achievement of
these goals. Suffice it to say that a committed member of an organization is the one
who has internalized the values and goals of the organization and is willing to
participate fully in all that the organization does towards the achievement of its
stated goals.

2
Meyer and Allen (1991) identified three types of commitment, namely, affective
commitment, normative commitment, and continuance commitment. In the
business before us today, however, the commitment of relevance is affective
commitment. Affective commitment is:

• the belief in and acceptance of the organization’s values and goals.

• a willingness to focus effort on helping the organization to achieve its goals,
and
• a desire to maintain membership in the organization.

Affectively committed employees are loyal to the organization and its goals
because they want to do so.

Given the crucial importance of organizational commitment, the onus lies on the
leadership of higher educational institutions to secure the commitment of all
consequential actors to the goals and aspirations of the institution. Such actors
include senior administrators, lecturers, heads of department, deans, directors, and
students. The leadership must be able to influence all or most consequential actors
to be committed to the institution’s efforts to attain global standards.

CORPORATE CULTURE

Once again the question is how can commitment of such actors be nurtured and
sustained? This is possible when there is a corporate culture, or generally accepted
ways of doing things. Corporate culture is thus a set of values, beliefs and
behaviour patterns that form the core identity of organizations, and which help in
shaping the behaviour of members. Deal and Kennedy (1982) put it simply as a set
of values that underlie how we do our things around here.

One type of corporate culture that has gained popularity in the human resource
management literature is consensual corporate culture. Because of its nature I
prefer to call it cooperative corporate culture. In that type of culture loyalty to the
organization, personal commitment to the values and goals of the organization,
teamwork and socialization are important (Deshpande & Farley, 1999). They are
what Achebe calls the palm oil with which they eat their lives in the organization. I
3
wish to use this platform to recommend cooperative corporate culture to higher
education institutions seeking commitment to quality moves.

Following a close scrutiny of Kurt Lewin’s (1948) group dynamics, Johnson and
Johnson, (1978; 1983) identified certain features of the internal dynamics of
groups and organizations that have the consensual or cooperative corporate culture.

These features are;

• Interdependence
• Interaction
• Group processing
• Social skills
• Accountability
• Equal participation, and
• Shared leadership

Consequential actors in the higher educational institution must all perceive that the
organization in which they are embedded is characterized by these conditions. This
perception naturally, will energize and motivate them to gear their efforts to
achieve the goals of the institution.

Interdependence, or positive interdependence, is the recognition that no one actor

can succeed in their tasks unless every other actor succeeds in theirs. Most or all
actors must accept the fact that as they strive to achieve and sustain quality in
academic standards and output, and as they strive to achieve effective management
of their institution, they are in a position where they can swim together or sink
together, depending on the total effect of their individual efforts.

Interaction or promotive interaction is the mutual help that members offer to one
another as they interact as members with a common objective. There should be a
platform for actors to share camaraderie and experiences, ask questions, offer or
receive explanations and seek clarifications. In other words, consequential actors in
the institution must as a habit discuss their activities, experiences, problems, and
successes with colleagues so that they can learn from one another. Meetings at the

4
staff club or the senate/academic board can be suitable fora for such formal and
informal interactions.

Group processing is the monitoring of the performance of the institution as a

whole, as well as monitoring of the performance of groups and individual actors.
Members of the institution must occasionally and periodically meet and reflect on
how well they are achieving their goals. There is the need for periodic self-
appraisal to determine the extent to which the institution is making success both as
a corporate entity and as individual actors.

Accountability is the acceptance of the fact that each consequential actor in the
institution is accountable to the group for tasks assigned to them. The lecturer, the
head of department, the director, the dean, the senior administrator, and the student
must recognize that they are individually and severally accountable to the
institution for the roles they are supposed to play in the quality direction. By
holding actors accountable, and by monitoring one another, free riders and social
loafers can be identified and made aware of their non performance.

Social skills are the tact and diplomacy with which actors monitor and thereby
reprimand non performing actors. Reprimands and awareness creation must be
made so tactfully that the pride of those in question will not be hurt. Therefore
social skills must be applied when reprimanding actors for non performance.

Equal participation is a condition in which all or most actors perceive that no one
acts as a free rider, a social loafer, or a sucker. There should be no room for anyone
to brood the idea that some actors are working while others are goofing. Nor
should others see themselves as doing almost all the work. All must be perceived
to be involved.

Finally, shared leadership is the condition in which all or most actors perceive
themselves to be leaders at their levels of operation. They must feel that each actor
has a role as a leader in the local constituencies they operate. Each incumbent of a
position must have initiative to offer the leadership that will contribute to the
achievement of the goals set by the institution. Therefore, even though leadership
is reposed in the Vice-Chancellor or President, in actual practice, leadership must
be perceived to be diffuse and contextual (Opare, 2007).

5
I present my theory in the model below:

Interdependence

Interaction
Sense of belonging

Group processing

Social skills

Accountability

Job Satisfaction

Equal Participation

Shared Leadership

Adhere
Commitme nce to
nt quality
standa
rds

Fig. 1: Model explaining how the internal dynamics of a higher education

institution can contribute to commitment and achievement of quality initiatives.

The model simply says that:

• The items listed on the left represent features of consensual corporate

culture. When consequential actors in the HEI perceive that these conditions
are prevailing in their institution, they tend to feel a sense of belonging; that
sense of belonging will boost their job satisfaction, and the enhanced job
satisfaction will make them committed to the ideals of the institution. In the

6
 final analysis commitment will make the actors adhere to the quality
procedures put in place in the institution.

REFERENCES

1. Ajayi, I. A. & Ekundayo, H. T. (2007). Funding Initiatives in University

Education in Nigeria. In J. B. Babalola, G. O. Akpa, and A. O. Ayew

(eds) Access Equity and Quality in Higher Education.

Lagos: NAEAP

2. Deal, T.E & Kennedy A.A. (1982). Corporate Cultures.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

3. Deshpande, R. & Farley, J. (1999). Executive Insights: Corporate Culture

and Market Orientation: Comparing Indian and Japanese Firms.

The Journal of International Marketing.

Vol.7 No. 4 pp 111-127

4. European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (2006).

Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Portugal. Occasional Paper

No. 10.

Helsinki: ENQA

5. Herscovitch, L. & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to Organization

7
 Change: Extension of three component model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87 Pp 474-487

6. Ibukun, W. O. (1997). Educational Management: Theory and Practice.

Ado-Ekiti: Greenline Publications.

7. Johnson, D. W; & Johnson, R.T. (1978). Cooperative, Competitive and

Individualistic Learning. Journal of Research and Development in

Education. Vol. 12. Pp 12-15.

8. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1983). The Socialisation and

Achievement Crisis: Are Cooperative Learning Experiences the

Answer? Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 4 pp 199-224

9. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflict: Selected Papers on Group

Dynamics. New York: Harper

10.Mazrui, A. (1994). Between Science and Society: The Social Responsibility

of Scholarship. In The Place of Learning in National Life.

Proceedings of the Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences. Vol. XXII

11.Meyer, J. P. & Allen, J. n. (1991). A three-Component Conceptualisation of

Organizational Commitment. Human Resources Management Review

(1). p61-89

8
12. Middlehurst, R. (2001). Quality Assurance Implications of New Forms of

Higher Education. Part I: A Typology. ENQA Occasional Paper 3

Helsinki: European Network for Quality Assurance In Higher

Education.

13.Muthuveloo, R. & Rose, R. C. (2005). Typology of Organisational

Commitment. American Journal of Applied Science 2 (6) 1078-1081

14.Opare, J. (2007). Simplicities and Complexities of the Effect of

Collaborative Learning Contexts on Academic Achievement.

International Journal of Educational Research, 3 (1) pp 147-160.