Looking good or doing good? Define the U.S. university's public mission by analyzing mission statements and strategic planning

IF 3.8 Q2 MANAGEMENT TQM Journal Pub Date : 2023-09-08 DOI:10.1108/tqm-10-2022-0313
A. Papadimitriou, Sarah Maria Schiffecker
{"title":"Looking good or doing good? Define the U.S. university's public mission by analyzing mission statements and strategic planning","authors":"A. Papadimitriou, Sarah Maria Schiffecker","doi":"10.1108/tqm-10-2022-0313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis study aimed to find possible answers to whether U.S. universities are merely looking good or doing good regarding their third mission using elements of the triple bottom line (people, planet, prosperity) and the 2030 Agenda.Design/methodology/approachQualitative exploratory empirical study based on an in-depth analysis of publicly available documents (i.e. mission statements and strategic planning) and information from the Impact Rankings 2020 edition (webpages). The study uses a multilevel analysis to capture the parameters “looking good” and “doing good.” The sample consists of 15 U.S. universities.FindingsThe findings demonstrate that universities are looking good in terms of their effort to support their third mission. Data show that all universities covered themes related to people and prosperity in their mission statements and strategic planning. However, when the authors dived into the managerial metrics, KPIs, benchmarks and other evidence to characterize them as doing good, the authors encountered some challenges in identifying evidence. The data suggest that universities most likely participated in the Impact Ranking act as “cherry pickers” and might participate in unproblematic goals for their organization.Originality/valueThe 3Ps and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals used in this study to examine the university public mission never used in other studies. The goal in this study was not to evaluate those universities in terms of looking good and doing good but rather to contribute to the gap in the literature and provide suggestions to university C-suite.","PeriodicalId":40009,"journal":{"name":"TQM Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TQM Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/tqm-10-2022-0313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThis study aimed to find possible answers to whether U.S. universities are merely looking good or doing good regarding their third mission using elements of the triple bottom line (people, planet, prosperity) and the 2030 Agenda.Design/methodology/approachQualitative exploratory empirical study based on an in-depth analysis of publicly available documents (i.e. mission statements and strategic planning) and information from the Impact Rankings 2020 edition (webpages). The study uses a multilevel analysis to capture the parameters “looking good” and “doing good.” The sample consists of 15 U.S. universities.FindingsThe findings demonstrate that universities are looking good in terms of their effort to support their third mission. Data show that all universities covered themes related to people and prosperity in their mission statements and strategic planning. However, when the authors dived into the managerial metrics, KPIs, benchmarks and other evidence to characterize them as doing good, the authors encountered some challenges in identifying evidence. The data suggest that universities most likely participated in the Impact Ranking act as “cherry pickers” and might participate in unproblematic goals for their organization.Originality/valueThe 3Ps and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals used in this study to examine the university public mission never used in other studies. The goal in this study was not to evaluate those universities in terms of looking good and doing good but rather to contribute to the gap in the literature and provide suggestions to university C-suite.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
看起来不错还是做得不错?通过分析使命宣言和战略规划来定义美国大学的公共使命
目的:本研究旨在通过三重底线(人、地球、繁荣)和2030年议程的要素,找到美国大学在第三个使命方面是看起来不错还是做得不错的可能答案。设计/方法/方法定性探索性实证研究基于对公开可用文件(即使命声明和战略规划)和2020年影响力排名版(网页)信息的深入分析。该研究采用多层次分析来捕捉“看起来不错”和“做得不错”的参数。样本包括15所美国大学。调查结果调查结果表明,大学在支持第三项使命方面的努力看起来不错。数据显示,所有大学在其使命宣言和战略规划中都涵盖了与人与繁荣相关的主题。然而,当作者深入研究管理指标、kpi、基准和其他证据来描述他们做得好时,作者在识别证据方面遇到了一些挑战。数据显示,参与影响力排名的大学最有可能扮演“挑挑拣拣者”的角色,并可能参与其组织的无问题目标。独创性/价值本研究中使用的3Ps和17个可持续发展目标来考察其他研究中从未使用过的大学公共使命。这项研究的目的不是从外表和行为上评价这些大学,而是为了弥补文献中的差距,并为大学高管提供建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
TQM Journal
TQM Journal Business, Management and Accounting-Business, Management and Accounting (all)
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
期刊介绍: Commitment to quality is essential if companies are to succeed in a commercial environment which will be virtually unrecognizable in less than a decade. Changing attitudes, changing perspectives and changing priorities will revolutionise the structure and philosophy of future business practice - and TQM will be at the heart of that metamorphosis. All aspects of preparing for, developing, introducing, managing and evaluating TQM initiatives.
期刊最新文献
Looking good or doing good? Define the U.S. university's public mission by analyzing mission statements and strategic planning Leadership characteristics for implementation and sustainability of quality: an exploratory study and directions for further research Industry 4.0 technologies integration with lean production tools: a review Tourists' satisfaction and sense of belonging in adopting responsible behaviors: the role of on-site and social media involvement in cultural tourism The misplacement of ISO 18404:2015 in organisational improvement: a point-counterpoint article
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1