The Endless Good Argument : The Adaptation of Mission at Two Liberal Arts Colleges

A meaningful institutional purpose does not just pop into existence. It must be constructed, with reference both to core values and to changing market or demographic conditions. This article examines three important moments in the history of two different institutions to better understand the development of such a process and explore how a sense of mission and the core values can survive over time, despite inevitable challenges. Comments Reprinted from Planning in Higher Education, Volume 33, Issue 4, June-August 2005, pages 5-11. Copyright Society for College and University Planning. Note: At the time of publication, Lawrence Schall was affliated with the University of Pennsylvania. Currently (October 2006), he is President of Oglethorpe University. This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/17 The Endless Good Argument The Adaptation of Mission at Two Liberal Arts Colleges A meaningful institutional purpose does not just pop into existence. It must be constructed, with reference both to core values and to changing market or demographic conditions. This article examines three important moments in the history of two different institutions to better understand the development of such a process and explore how a sense of mission and the core values can survive over time, despite inevitable challenges. by Matthew Hartley and Lawrence Schall Matthew Hartley is an assistant professor of education at the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education. His research focuses on organizational change and the governance of colleges and universities. Lawrence Schall will become president of Oglethorpe University on July 1, 2005. He is the former vice president of administration at Swarthmore College and served as co-director of the Executive Doctorate Program in Higher Education at the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education from 2003–05. How Mission Matters Most college and university administrators work in institutions decades or even centuries old. Over time, as these institutions respond to new challenges and new environmental contingencies, they adapt patterns of behaviors based on a process of trial and error. They learn what strategies work and develop shared understandings about “how we ought to do things around here.” The residue of this successive pattern of learning is organizational culture (Schein 1992). Over the past two decades researchers have described the powerful ways in which shared norms and values influence the behaviors of individuals and, by extension, entire institutions (Deal and Kennedy 1982; Schein 1992)—including colleges and universities (Tierney 1988). Characteristic of a strong (that is, a coherent and shared) organizational culture is a clear sense of purpose or mission (Chaffee 1984; Clark 1972; Dill 1997; Hartley 2002; Keller 1983; Tierney 1988). Institutional mission influences organizational life in at least two major ways: First, mission is instructive. A mission helps people discern which activities or behaviors are valued and which ought to be shunned (Ouchi 1980; Schein 1992). It serves as a kind of broad framework within which people organize their activities and it answers the question, what should we be doing? Second, a mission can also give people a sense of meaning about their work. It Planning for Higher Education 5 6 June–August 2005 may promote a sense of uniqueness (Clark 1972; Martin et al. 1983; Selznick 1957). It can also explain how the work contributes to a larger cause, which can generate greater commitment (Hartley 2002; Martin et al. 1983; Pettigrew 1979). This “meaning-making” function of an institutional mission suggests that organizations benefit from answering the workplace equivalent of the great existential question, why are we here? Both of these factors—a clear understanding of institutional priorities and a willingness, indeed, a desire to implement them—are vital to the success of any strategic initiative. Interestingly, despite the benefits of having a clear mission, the process by which colleges go about clarifying and revising their academic missions remains largely unexplored (Delucchi 1997). This article presents an historical analysis of this phenomenon at Swarthmore College (Swarthmore, Pennsylvania) and Olivet College (Olivet, Michigan). A hundred years ago, like many small colleges, both institutions served a regional—even a local—clientele. Today, Swarthmore is a highly selective, nationally known liberal arts college with a billion dollar endowment. Olivet, by contrast, is a nonselective institution that draws most of its students (many of whom are first-generation students) regionally and, until relatively recently, has led a rather hardscrabble existence. To some degree, the two are extremes within an institutional type. A closer examination, however, reveals that they are linked in ways that belie the “rich college/poor college” comparison. Both faced strikingly similar challenges historically—broadening their appeal by moving away from their church affiliations and weathering environmental shifts such as the Great Depression or the “stagflation” of the 1970s and ’80s. In both cases, individual presidents raised the institutions to positions of truly national prominence. Throughout their histories, successive generations have struggled to clarify, define, and refine their missions. These accounts underscore that a meaningful institutional purpose does not simply exist—it must be constructed. Organizational theorists Collins and Porras (1994, 1996) argue that institutional purpose consists of two elements: a core ideology and an envisioned future. The core ideology is the set of values shared by institutional members, particularly those in a position to influence policy. The envisioned future is the group’s aspirations for the institution—a vision of what the institution might be able to achieve. Often, crafting a successful vision requires that vision to be both rooted in core values and extended beyond those values, sensitive, for example, to changing market or demographic conditions. To be clear, we are not advocating here the development of mission or vision statements. A number of researchers have pointed out that often these consist of stock collections of vague and aspirational phrases and fail to convey any meaningful sense of an institution’s unique identity (Chait 1993; Davies 1986; Delucchi 1997). Rather, the development of a core ideology and envisioned future requires institutional members to commit to collective, sustained discussions about the core purposes of their educational institution. This article examines three historic moments in these two institutions’ histories in order to better understand how such a purpose is developed: • The founding of the institution. As Clark (1972) and Schein (1992) observe, the founder or founders play a disproportionate role in shaping the values and purposes of the institution. This is also a time when the aspirations of the institution are clearly articulated. • Curricular reform in the early 20th century. In the 1920s, Frank Aydelotte, a member of the first American class of Rhodes Scholars, brought to Swarthmore the Honors Program. Within 10 years, Swarthmore developed a national reputation among faculty and students for intellectual excellence and intensity. In the 1930s, Olivet hired a young president, Joseph Brewer, who brought the University of Oxford’s tutorial program to the institution and attracted, for a brief period of time, a number of noted literary luminaries. • Critical incidents within the past decade. In 2000, in an effort to strengthen its overall intercollegiate athletic program and ensure its commitment to academic excellence, Swarthmore ended its football program after over 100 years of involvement. The decision split the community and generated intense debate over what type of student Swarthmore ought to serve. Swarthmore’s president weathered the storm and today remains a strong and effective leader. Olivet experienced an ugly racial incident in the early 1990s that tore apart the campus. In the aftermath, an intense debate ensued about the institution’s purposes, resulting in an impressive institutional transformation. Matthew Hartley and Lawrence Schall A meaningful institutional purpose does not simply exist—it must be constructed.