Evaluation of the organizational image of a university in a higher education institution

Evaluation of the organizational image of a university in a higher education institution Contaduría y Administración 62 (2017) 123–140 www contaduriayadministracionunam mx/ Available online at www sci[.]

Trang 1

Contaduría y Administración 62 (2017) 123–140

www.contaduriayadministracionunam.mx/

www.cya.unam.mx/index.php/cya

Evaluación de la imagen organizacional universitariaen una institución

de educación superior

Juana Patlán Péreza,∗, Edgar Martínez Torresb

aUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico

bUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Mexico

Abstract

Organizationalimageisanimportantissueformanyinstitutionsofhighereducationbybeingimmersed

in acompetitiveenvironment thatrequireshigher qualityof educationalservices.Theobjectiveofthis researchistoevaluatetheorganizationalimageofaninstitutionofhighereducation.Forthispurpose,an investigationwasconducted.Thestagesofthisresearchwere:translation-retranslationoftheoriginalscale

oforganizationalimage;integrationofscaleitemsusingasemanticdifferentialresponsescaletype;piloting

ofthescalewithasampleof226teachersand541studentsofAutonomousUniversityofHidalgoState; determinationofthepsychometricpropertiesofthescale(constructvalidityandreliability,andcorrelations betweenthefactorsofscale),descriptivestatisticsofthescaleandcomparativeanalysis.Theresultsindicate thattheorganizationalimagescaleadaptedtoMexicanpopulationhasadequatepsychometricpropertiesto assessthisconstruct.Inaddition,weidentifiedsignificantdifferencesoftheorganizationalimageineach instituteoftheIESevaluated

JEL classiﬁcation: I23; C38; J24; L14

Keywords: Image; Organizational image; University organizational image

E-mail address:patlanjuana@hotmail.com (J Patlán Pérez).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cya.2016.01.007

Trang 2

124 J Patlán Pérez, E Martínez Torres / Contaduría y Administración 62 (2017) 123–140

Resumen

Laimagenorganizacionalesimportanteparamuchasinstitucionesdeeducaciónsuperiorporencontrarse

enunentornoampliamentecompetitivoquedemandaservicioseducativosdecalidad.Elpropósitode estain-vestigaciónfueevaluarlaimagenorganizacionaluniversitariaenunainstitucióndeeducaciónsuperior.Para estepropósitoserealizóunainvestigacióndeacuerdoconlassiguieronetapas:adaptacióndelaescalade imagenorganizacionalapoblaciónmexicana;integracióndeescalaenformatodediferencialsemántico; aplicacióndelaescalaaunamuestrade226 profesoresy541 estudiantesdelaUniversidadAutónoma delEstadodeHidalgo;determinacióndelaspropiedadespsicométricasdelaescala(validezdeconstructoy confiabilidad);estadísticasdescriptivasdelaimagenorganizacionalyanálisiscomparativodelaimagen orga-nizacionalporescuela.Losresultadosindicanquelaescaladeimagenorganizacionaladaptadaapoblación mexicanatienepropiedadespsicométricasadecuadasparaevaluaresteconstructo.Además,seidentificaron diferenciassignificativasdelaimagendelaorganizaciónencadainstitutodelaIESevaluada

Códigos JEL: I23; C38; J24; L14

Palabras clave: Imagen; Imagen organizacional; Imagen organizacional universitaria

Introduction

Theorganizationalimageisimportantforseveralorganizationsthatwanttobecompetitive andguaranteetheirpermanenceinthemarketintheshort,mediumandlongterm,withagrowing demandfortheirproductsand/orservices.Theimageperceivedbythepublicandaudiencesof

anorganization, aswellas bytheemployees,directlyaffectsthe efficientperformanceof the organizations(Druteikiene,2011;McPherson&Schapiro,1998;Treadwell&Harrison,1994)

In the higher education institutions (HEI),the organizational imageisan important factorto attractandretainthebeststudents,professorsandemployees(Helgesen&Nesset,2007;Polat, 2011).Inthe caseof thestudents,theimageofaneducationalinstitutionisimportantfor the realizationof theirstudies;it getstheloyaltyof thestudentsandit isameanstoattractother students(Brown&Mazzarol,2009).Inregardtotheprofessorsandthepersonnel,theimageof theeducationalinstitutionisfundamentalasitgeneratesemotionalties,itcreatesaresponseas wellaspositiveperformance,itcreatesagreatercommitment,involvementandcohesioninthe personnel(Herrbach&Mignonac,2004;Traverso,2005;Treadwell&Harrison,1994)

Fortheevaluationoftheorganizationalimageinliterature,differentmeasurementinstruments are identified;these areused tomeasure,for example, the imageof the policeofficers (Yim

&Schafer,2009),theimageoftheschools,andtheimageoftheuniversitiesandHEIof sev-eralcountries(Gioia&Thomas,1996;MagierskiandKassouf,2003;BakerandBrown,2007; Helgesen&Nesset,2007) Furthermore, somestudiesthat measurethe organizationalimage throughtheperceptionsofthedirectives(Herrbach&Mignonac,2004)andsurgeons(Dukerich, Golden,&Shortell,2002),amongothers,areworthnoting

Theevaluationoftheorganizationalimageofauniversityrepresentsachallengeeverytime that themeasuringinstrumentsfor theHEIbecome scarce.Forthisreason,itwasconsidered relevanttocarryouttheevaluationoftheorganizationalimageofaHEIthroughtheperceptions

of the professorsandstudents.The objective wastoidentify the perceptionsthat theinternal public (professors andstudents) of aHEIhave formedthrough their experience,information

Trang 3

and interactionwiththe organization.Forthis purpose,the imagescaleof the organizational imageof auniversity (cognitiveandaffective) of Beerli, Díaz,andPérez (2002)andRussell andPratt(1980)wasadaptedtotheMexicanpopulation.Themethodologyusedinthisresearch comprisedfivestages:(a)adaptationoftheoriginalscaleinEnglishtotheMexicanpopulation; (b)integrationofthescalewithasemanticdifferentialtyperesponseformat;(c)theuseofthe scalewithasampleof226 professorsand541studentsofaHEI;(d)thedeterminationofthe psychometricpropertiesofthescale(factoranalysisandstructuralequationanalysis,reliability analysis andthe analysis of the correlationsamong factors);(e)the descriptive statistics and the analysis of the organizational imagein the schools or the Institutes of the HEI that was evaluated

Belowwewillanalyzetheconceptualfoundationsoftheorganizationalimageconstructand

of theorganizationalimageofauniversity,as wellas thecomponentsthatcomprisethis con-struct.Subsequently,wedescribethemethodusedandpresenttheresultsandconclusionsofthis investigation

Organizational image

The organizational imageisa complexconstruct basedon the perceptionof the public or personnel ofanorganization thatcarriesout adifferentiatingandcomparative appraisalofits characteristics(Günalan&Ceylan,2014).Theimagealludestothetotalimpressionthataperson constructsintheirmindregardingsomethingorsomeone(Dichter,1985).Theimageisformed forthepeopleorforthepublicoftheorganizationasaresultoftheinterpretationthattheymake outoftheinformationordisinformationoftheorganization(Toto&García,2012).However,the imageinvolvesthebeliefs,attitude,stereotypes,ideas,relevantbehaviorandimpressionsthata personhasofanobject,apersonoranorganization(Kotler&Andreasen,2008)

Theimageisdefinedasthesumofthebeliefs,ideasandimpressionsthatapersonhasofan object Fromapracticalpointofview, theimagecouldbeinstitutional ororganizational.The institutional imageisbuiltasagroupofpeopleworktocreateaninstitutionwithregardtoits objectives,workingmethods,thetreatmenttheyreceivefromtheemployees,whichinconjunction turnsintoaninstitutionalimagethatwillindicatewhattheethicsortheorganizationare.Onthe otherhand,theorganizationalimagereferstothenatural,spontaneous,orthe resultingimage

of theexpectationsandtheexchangesthatthepeoplehavewiththeorganization(Giangrande, 1995)

Inturn,Polat(2011)definestheorganizationalimageasthevision,representationorimpression thatthepeopleformintheirmindsbasedontheinformationordataofanorganizationobtained throughtheinteractiontheyhavehadwiththeelementsorcomponentsoftheorganization.Inthis manner,theorganizationsthatmanagetoattracttalentedhumanresourcesorclients,arethose thatmaintainandcommunicateapositiveimage

The organizationalimageis theshared knowledgethat thepeople haveofan organization andof how itshouldoperate (Berg,1985).The organizationalimageisalso presentedas the corporateimage,perceivedexternalprestige,corporatereputation,andcorporateidentity,among others(Helgesen&Nesset,2007).However,theseconstructshavedifferences,asshowninthe followingtable(Tables1and2)

Theorganizationalimageisdefinedbydifferentauthorswithafocus,bothinbeliefsandin attitudes,inregardtoanorganization(Kotler,1975).However,TreadwellandHarrison(1994) presentamultifacetedperspectiveoftheorganizationalimageconceivedasagroupofcognitions, including beliefs,attitudesandimpressionsregardingthebehaviorsandrelevantaspectsofan

Trang 4

( Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994 ).

2011 ).

Source:Information based on several authors.

Human

resources

Herrbach and Mignonac (2004)

Traverso (2005)

Harold (2010)

organization.Inthissense,theorganizationalimagerepresentsanindividualsubjectiveresponse

ofapersoninordertodifferentiatetheorganizationwithregardtometaphors,fantasies,myths

or morestructuredcognitions suchas diagramsor mentalmaps AccordingtoTreadwelland Harrison (1994), the organizational image isthe necessary result of a persuasive or planned communicationthatisfrequentlycarriedoutonewayandinadirectmannertoaspecificpublic

or audience The social-cognitive process to form the organizational image implies that any

Trang 5

organization is capableof controllingthe memory of the people, bothinternal and external, inducingthemtoforgetnegativeimagesorimagesthatareincompatiblewiththeirimage,and

inturn,torememberorhighlightthepositiveeventsaccordingtothevisionandpurposesofthe organization

ForDuqueandCarvajal(2015)theorganizationalimageisdescribedasasubjective knowl-edge, as an attitudeandas acombination of thecharacteristics of the good or service that a companyoffers.However,theorganizationalimage,accordingtotheseauthors,ispartofasetof individualperceptionsaboutanorganization,itscharacteristics,processesandproducts(goods and/orservices)fabricatedorproduced.Thus,theorganizationalimageisalsoidentifiedbythe ideasexpressedbyasociety thathasasymmetriesandthatissubject totheperceptionof the individuals,totheinterestofeachoneofthem,andtotherolesthateachpersonplayswithregard

toaspecificorganization(Blázquez&Peretti,2012)

Organizational image of a university

perceived image that thepublic has of aHEIaccording totheir ideas, interestsand personal experiences—socialandhistoric.Underthisdefinition,thepersonlinkedtotheuniversitydoes

arationalandemotionalassessment ofthetangibleandintangibleattributesof theinstitution

Inthismanner,eachpersonmentallyformsanimageoftheinstitution,whichcouldbedifferent

ineachpersonthatevaluatestheinstitution.Inturn,GuédezandOsta(2012)considerthatthe organizationalimageofauniversityreferstotheimageperceivedbyitsexternalpublic(public andprivateorganizations,graduates,governmentalinstitutions)andinternalpublic(current stu-dents,professors,administrativeandservicespersonnel,amongothers),who,accordingtotheir experience, interestsandideascarryoutarational,cognitiveandemotionalassessment ofthe characteristicsandattributesoftheinstitution

Regarding HEIs, thereare different studiesabout theorganizational imageof universities MagierskiandKassouf(2003)presentananalysisofthecorporateimageoffiveuniversitiesof SaoPablothroughtheFamiliarity–FavorabilityMatrix,withwhichitwaspossibletoverifythe knowledgeandreputationoftheuniversitiesforaparticularpublic,theresultsofwhichcouldbe usedforthemarketingplanningoftheuniversities

Inliterature,therehasbeenabroadinterestregardingtheelectionfactorsofahighereducation institutionforthepursuitofuniversitystudies.Amongthesefactorsare:gender,race,theinstitution wherethehighschoolstudieswereundertaken,socialclass,familyinfluenceonthestudents,the influence oftheir classmates andprofessors,andthe imageandreputationof theeducational institution(Baker&Brown,2007)

TheorganizationalimageofauniversityisimportantforthecorrectfunctioningofaHEI,for thestudentsandforthepersonnelofthesetypesofinstitutions.Asasummary,Table3showsthe importancefactorsoftheorganizationalimageofauniversityforHEIs

ItisimportanttoaddthattheHEIsshouldworryabouttheorganizationalimageofa univer-sity for three mainreasons (Torpor, 1983): (a)these typesof institutions need toknow how the institution is perceived with regard to its competition, (b) it is necessary to know how theseinstitutionsare perceivedbytheirdifferentaudiences(students,ex-alumni,society),and (c)it isnecessary tomonitorthe gapbetweenrealimageandthe desiredor expectedimage

In consequence, the evaluation of the organizational image of a university is an important task

Trang 6

Treadwell and Harrison (1994)

McPherson and Schapiro (1998)

Druteikiene (2011)

Blázquez and Peretti (2012)

Students

Helgesen and Nesset (2007)

Stevens et al.

(2008)

Polat (2011) Student satisfaction is achieved through outstanding teachers,

(1994)

organization.

Nolan and Harold (2010)

Components of the organizational image of a university

NguyenandLeblanc(2001)pointoutthepresenceoftwocomponentsoftheorganizational image:functionalandemotional.Thefunctionalcomponentisrelatedtothetangible character-isticsoftheorganizationthatcanbeeasilymeasured,inturn,theemotionalcomponentisrelated

topsychologicalaspectssuchasfeelingsandattitudestowardtheorganizationasaresultof expe-riencesandtheprocessingofinformationofattributesthatcontributetotheperformanceofthe organization

Galiniené,Marcinskas,Miskinis,andDruteikiene(2009)identify differentattributesof the organizationalimage,for example,thegeographicallocation,thetypeofuniversity(publicor private),thecomplexityforadmissionandtheeducationalleveloftheaspirants,theprograms offered,thebibliographicrepertory,thebudgetoftheinstitution,thefeesortuition,etc.According

totheseauthors,theidealimageofaHEIconsidersfourfactors(cognition,evaluation,activityand strengths)andelevencomponents:reliable,warmth,active,friendly,liberal,reputation,attractive, developing,young,modernandopen

Ingeneral,thedefinitionsoforganizationalimagetakeintoconsiderationacognitiveelement based onthe groupof perceived beliefsor attributes of the organization.However, thereisa dimensionthatcapturesthefeelingsontheobjectthatwasevaluated.Beerlietal.(2002)state thattheorganizationalimageofauniversityisaperceptualphenomenonthatisformedbyan assessment andarationalandemotionalinterpretationmade bythepersonwithregardtothe organization and, therefore,is comprised of an inextricable systemof components: cognitive (beliefs)andaffective(feelings,emotions)

Trang 7

Meanwhile, Galiniené et al.(2009) state that the organizational image of a university is comprisedbythreecomponents:

• Cognitiveimage.Italludestothecognitionsdevelopedwithregardtothefacilities,thecourses, theweather,theopportunitiesofenrollment,theenrollmentfee,theprofessors,thequalityof education,thepreparationofthestudents,thetheoretical–practicalapproach,therequirements

of enrollment, the orientation or behavior toward the students, the communication or dis-tancebetweenthestudentortheprofessor,therelationshipordistancebetweentheuniversity andsociety,thelinkof theuniversitywithcompanies,thenumberofstudents,the popular-ityof theuniversity, the ageof theuniversity, andthe typeof university(elite, traditional, innovative)

• Theemotional-affective image Itcomprisesemotionssuch as pleasant-unpleasant, boring-stimulating,stressful-relaxed,somber-animated

• Generalimage.Itreferstothepositiveornegativeperceptionofanorganization

Accordingtothepointspreviouslyanalyzed,itcanbesaidthatconstructionanorganizational imageiscomprisedbyacognitiveandanaffectivecomponent,allwhiletakingintoconsideration thepresenceofglobaltypeindicators(Table4)

Thus, the objective of this investigation was to evaluate the organizational image of a HEI throughan adaptationfor theMexican populationofthe cognitiveimagescaleof Beerli

etal.(2002)andtheaffective imagescaleofRussellandPratt(1980)forHEIs Furthermore,

Nguyen and Leblanc

(2001)

Beerli et al (2002) 2 • Cognitive image (beliefs)

Galiniené et al (2009) 3 • Cognitive image

Guerra and Arends

(2008) and

Traverso (2005)

Nolan and Harold

(2010)

Guédez and Osta

(2012)

Trang 8

in this research we identified the organizational imageof a university as perceived by each school

Method

Planning and research question

Theorganizationalimageisrelevantfortheorganizationsand,particularly,fortheHEIs.The demandtopursueuniversitystudiesisinfluencedbytheuniversityimage,astheattractionand retentionofprofessorsandemployeesisaffectedbytheimageheldbytheinstitution.Furthermore, theorganizationalimageisimportantbecauseitisabasicelementinthestrategicdirection,an attractionfactorfororganizationsandaconsolidatingandcohesivefactorforthemembersofthe organization(Traverso,2005)

AsindicatedbyPerozoandAlcalá(2008)theimageisimportantforboththesourceoftheimage (organization)aswellasforwhoreceivesit(thesubject).Fortheorganization,apositiveimage

isarequirement toestablishapositive-favorable relationshipwithatargetaudience,whereas forthe subjecttheimageisameansofconsideringorevaluatingtheorganization(good,bad, useful,useless,etc.).Thus,thegreaterthetrustplacedonanorganization’simagebyasubject, themoreimportantitwill bethattheorganization hasasolidreputation.In thissense, itwas consideredrelevanttocarryoutaninvestigationwiththeobjectiveofunderstandingwhichisthe organizationalimageperceivedoftheAutonomousUniversityoftheStateofHidalgo,byboth itsprofessorsandstudents,aswellastoidentifythesignificantdifferencesthatexistintheimage perceivedineachInstituteoftheevaluatedHEI

Investigation type and design

Anex-post factoinvestigationofthedescriptiveandvariableassociationtypewascarriedout

Anon-experimentaldesignwasused

Sample

Thesamplewascomprisedof541(70.5%)degreestudentsand226(29.5%)full-time profes-sorsofaHEI(Table1).Theaverageageofthesamplewasof27.2years,51.0%werewomen and49.0%men.Ofthesample,24.5%correspondtotheInstituteofEconomicAdministrative Sciences,20.0%tothe Instituteof BasicSciences andEngineering,19.3%totheInstituteof HealthSciences,15.9%totheInstituteof SocialSciencesandHumanities,11.5%totheArts Institute,and8.2%totheInstituteofAgriculturalSciences

Instrument

Forthemeasurementofthecognitiveimage,21reactantswereusedinasemanticdifferential scalecomprised bybipolarprocedureswithfivepointsof response(5,4, 3,2, 1),whichwas developedbyBeerlietal.(2002)forHEI.Theglobalorganizationalimageindicatedbuiltbythe aforementionedauthorswasalsoutilized,correspondingtoareactant.Forthemeasurementofthe affectiveimage,threereactantsdevelopedbyRussellandPratt(1980)forHEIwereutilizedand

Trang 9

ofthescalearepresentedinAppendix1

Procedure

Themethodologyusedconsistedonsevenstages:(a)adaptationoftheoriginalscaleinEnglish

of Beerlietal.(2002)andRussellandPratt(1980)throughatranslation–retranslationprocess carriedoutbytwoexpertsinorganizationalevaluationandpsychometry;(b)integrationofthe scale andthereactants, inthiscasethe reactantswere comprehensibleandcongruentfor the Mexicanpopulationandtheresponseformatwasofthesemanticdifferentialtypewithfivepoints

ofresponsebetweenthepairsofadjectivesofthescale;(c)implementationofthescaletoasample

of226professorsand541studentsofaHEI;d)determinationofthepsychometricpropertiesofthe scale(factorialanalysisandanalysisofthestructuralequations,reliabilityanalysis,andanalysis

of the correlationsbetween factors);(e)descriptivestatistics of the organizational imageand comparativeanalysisperschool

Data analysis

TheconstructvaliditywascarriedoutthroughtheexploratoryfactorialanalysisusingtheSPSS softwareversion17andtheanalysisofstructuralequationswiththeAMOSsoftwareversion20

Inordertodeterminethereliabilityofthescale,Cronbach’sAlphawasestimated;furthermore, descriptive statistics of the factorsof the scale were carried out and the Pearson correlation coefficientsweredeterminedbetweenthefactorsofthescale.In ordertoidentifytherelations statisticallysignificantbetweenthefactorsoftheorganizationalimageandthedifferentInstitutes

oftheevaluatedHEI,aonetrackvarianceanalysiswascarriedout

Results and discussion

TheadaptationprocessoftheorganizationalimagescaleofBeerlietal.(2002)andRussell and Pratt(1980) was donethrough a translationandretranslation processof the reactants of the original scale inEnglish with the collaboration of two experts in organizational evalua-tion andpsychometry In this process,the original meaning of the reactant was maintained Subsequently, the reactants of the scale were integratedin such a way for them tobe com-prehensibleandcongruentfortheMexicanpopulation.Atotalof23reactantswereintegrated (19 reactants for the cognitive Image, 3 reactantsfor the affective image, and1 reactant for the global Indicator), whichhad a response scale of the semantic differential typewith five points of response between the pairs of bipolar adjectives of the scale The implementation

of the scale was carried out witha sample of 226 professors and541 students of a HEI of Mexico

Table5showstheconstructvalidityresultsoftheOrganizationalImageScalefora Univer-sitycarriedoutthroughtheexploratoryfactorialanalysiswiththemethodofmaincomponents andvarimaxrotation.Theresultsshowthepresenceofthreecognitiveimagefactors(F Orien-tationanduniversitytraining,F2Reputationoftheinstitution,F3Institutionalmaturity)andan affectiveimagefactor(F4).Thepercentageofaccumulatedexplainedvariancewasof70.35%, withapercentageofexplainedvarianceof21.97%for thefirstfactor,18.85%forthesecond, 14.86%forthethird,and16.67%forthefourth.In theseresults,avalueof.889wasobtained

Trang 10

image:

university preparation

image:

institution

image:

institutional maturity

F4 affective image

demanding

adequacy

.889

Bartlett’stest of sphericity 5929.49

Source:Own elaboration based on the results of the research.

Note:Method: main components; Rotation: Varimax;n= 767.

in the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin sample suitability measurement andof 5929.49 in the Bartlett’s

sphericitytest(p=.000)whichindicatestheadequacyofthefactorialanalysis.Intotal,7 reac-tantswereeliminatedfromthecognitiveimagefactorsandonereactantfromtheaffectiveimage factors

Likewise,thefactorialstructureoftheorganizationalimagescaleforauniversitywasidentified through theanalysisof structuralequations.To thisend, twomodelsweredesigned.Model1 includesthreecognitiveimagefactors(F1Orientationanduniversitytraining,F2Reputationof theinstitution,F3Institutionalmaturity)andanaffectiveimagefactor(F4affectiveimage).The resultsofModel1areshowninFigure1.Thestandardizedbetavaluesofeachreactantwithits respectivefactorsoscillatedbetween.560and.930.Furthermore, thecorrelationsbetweenthe threecognitiveimagefactorsoscillatedbetween.583and661

Figure2showstheresultsofModel2.Intheseresults,threecognitiveimagefactorsandone affectiveimagefactorwereidentified.Therelationoffactors1,2and3withthecognitiveimage oscillatedbetween.763and.823.Thecorrelationbetweenthecognitiveimageandtheaffective imagegaveavalue of 846.Asfor the standardizedbetavaluesof the reactants,each factor oscillatedbetween.555and.939

Định dạng
Số trang	18
Dung lượng	709,08 KB