Understanding of organizational culture--论文代写范文精选

巴特尔确定了各种对国际化的理解上,从极简和静态到复杂和所有方面。巴特尔观察到这种程度的变化，不同大学之间也存在在一个机构,增加理解组织文化的复杂性。巴特尔将这种变化归因于几个因素。下面的essay代写范文进行详述。

Abstract
  This paper examines five articles that demonstrate a variety of typologies, frameworks and models that may be applied to increase institutional member/ leadership knowledge and understanding about how an institution’s organizational culture impacts internationalization. Bartell (2003) built on Tierney’s (1988) and Sporn’s (1996) research on organizational culture and post-secondary education to create a framework for understanding the process of internationalization within universities. Stier (2004) proposed three divergent ideologies for understanding attitudes and assumptions about internationalization held by members of different stakeholder groups within universities. Agnew and VanBalkom (2009) examined cultural readiness for internationalization and introduced an assessment model. Burnett and Huisman (2010) used international student recruitment to examine how university culture influences institutional responses to internationalization. Agnew (2012) used Stier’s (2004) ideologies to examine, “…the interplay between university culture and ideology in supporting and impeding internationalisation” (p. 473).

  Bartell (2003) identified a variety of understandings about internationalization, ranging across a continuum from minimalist and static to complex and all encompassing. Bartell (2003) observed that this level of variability existed not only between different universities but also within a single institution, adding to the complexity of understanding organizational culture. Bartell (2003) attributed this variation to several factors including “structure, strategy, field of study and university culture” (p. 50). Bartell (2003) identified common characteristics of university culture as “goals…are fuzzy… internal stakeholders are numerous and varied…conflict is inherent in values and belief systems between the professors…and administrators… the environment is…complex, rapidly changing and demanding” (p. 52-53). 

  Stier (2004) posited that a difference in the ideological underpinnings held by administrators and faculty about the rationale for internationalization increased organizational conflict and demonstrated the complexity of beliefs held by different stakeholders. Bartell (2003) suggested that it is this internal complexity that underscores the importance for institutional leaders to understand their organizational culture to be able to effectively implement internationalization goals and strategies. Bartell (2003) used Sporn’s (1996) typology of institutional strength and orientation to assess “the adaptability of the university to the pressures to internationalize” (p. 57). Bartell (2003) found that institutions that had organizational cultures that were strong and externally oriented were the most successful at adapting to effective changes for internationalization. 

  Stier (2004) proposed three divergent ideologies for understanding internationalization in universities: idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism. Stier (2004) examined the “…explicit as well as implicit vision, foci, goals and strategies” (p. 85) of each ideology. The three ideologies provided a lens to view individual attitudes and assumptions about internationalization. While Stier (2004) did not discuss organizational culture per se, the three ideologies were used as a means to understand individual attitudes and assumptions, a key component identified by Schein (2010) in understanding an institution’s organizational culture. CBIE PhD RESEARCH SERIES 4 The underlying assumption of idealism is that “internationalization is good per se” (Stier, 2004, p. 88). 

  Idealism supports the view that internationalization provides/creates a social good by granting students from the “poor world” (p. 89) access to knowledge, and enabling domestic students to enlarge their understanding of other cultures, values and ideas (Stier, 2004). Stier (2004) believed that this ideology is pervasive amongst faculty and more common in the social sciences and humanities than in the sciences. Instrumentalism supports pragmatic and economic approaches to internationalization (Stier, 2004). Stier (2004) stated that university administrators are key proponents of this ideology. Instrumentalism underlies international recruitment strategies that focus on supporting the knowledge economy (Stier, 2004). 

  Educationalism “… implies a wider and deeper view of education…with a strong emphasis on the value of learning itself” (Stier, 2004, p. 91-92). The educationalist ideology views internationalization as a way to contribute to “…personal growth and self-actualization” (Stier, 2004, p. 92). Stier (2004) concluded that internationalization in universities will benefit if there is an increased familiarity between all members of the academy with each other’s divergent, “… expectations, obligations and understanding of internationalization” (p. 95). Stier (2004) suggested that these varied and contradictory conceptualizations of internationalization impact the successful implementation of internationalization strategies. 

  Agnew and VanBalkom (2009) combined Sporn’s (1996) typology of strength and orientation with three levels of analysis: micro (individual), meso (organizational) and macro (external stakeholders) and created the Cultural Readiness for Internationalization (CRI) model. The purpose of the CRI model was to provide a mechanism for planning for strategic change to further institutional internationalization. Three assumptions were embedded in the CRI model: an organization that is receptive to internationalization is likely to have a successful change process; conditions can be created to strengthen organizational culture to be receptive to change; organizational cultural readiness for internationalization will increase the sustainability of internationalization. 

  The CRI model was structured using “…a systems level of analysis, organizational theory and is situated in a cultural framework” (Agnew & VanBalkom, 2009, p. 454). Agnew and VanBalkom (2009) tested the CRI model at two American universities using a combination of focus groups, individual interviews and document analysis. Similar to Bartell (2003), Agnew and VanBalkom (2009) found that specific influences exist within universities that can support or undermine cultural readiness for internationalization. （essay代写)

  Agnew and VanBalkom (2009) concluded that institutional success in internationalization increases when there is alignment and congruence between individual (micro), institutional (meso) and external (macro) values, beliefs and attitudes. Their findings supported Sporn’s (1996) findings about institutional strength (level of congruency) and orientation (external/internal). Burnett and Huisman (2010) reported on their empirical research about the implications of organizational culture on internationalization at four Canadian universities. 

  Burnett and Huisman (2010) applied McNay’s (1995) model of four organizational types: enterprising, corporate, collegiate and bureaucratic (McNay 1995, in Burnett & Huisman, 2010, p. 120). The substantive difference between the four organizational types was whether a university had “loose versus tight operational controls and the relative emphasis on policy and strategy” (Burnett & Huisman, 2010, p. 120). For example, enterprising universities had tight policy, loose operational control and an external orientation and bureaucratic universities had loose policy and tight operational control and emphasized regulations (Burnett & Huisman, 2010, p. 120). The four organizational cultural types are not mutually exclusive and to some degree all types coexist in a university.

 Conclusion 
  The study of organizational culture as relevant to higher education began with Tierney (1988). In the late 1990’s researchers began investigating internationalization in higher education. It was not until Bartell’s work (2003) that the two were combined and organizational culture was identified as a key indicator for the successful implementation of internationalization. Bartell (2003) was the first to demonstrate the significance of organizational culture on the success or failure of institutional internationalization. Stier’s (2004) identification of three ideologies underlying internationalization introduced the complexity of stakeholder perceptions, assumptions and values. Agnew and VanBalkom’s (2009) systems-level analysis of both organizational culture and internationalization created a means to assess institutional readiness for internationalization. Burnett and Huisman’s (2010) research about types of organizational culture revealed institutional characteristics that supported or detracted from internationalization. Agnew (2012) used a systemslevel analysis to understand the impact of contradictory yet simultaneous ideologies on the implementation of institutional internationalization efforts.（essay代写)

  51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
  更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)