comm audit paper

AndreaFasoli-IgorLyubenok-StewartCumming 25/02/16

1

COM347ResearchProposal:“OrganizationalCulturewithinTASIS’Highschool”

TheresearchproposalhasbeensetupforthepurposeofconductingaCommunicationAudit,

whichwillevaluate thevariousaspectsandcharacteristicsofTASIS’organizationalculture;

particularlyfocusingontheHighschooldivision.Inordertoprovidealittlebackground,we

wanttoacknowledgethatTASIS(TheAmericanSchoolinSwitzerland)wasfoundedin1956,

byM.CristFlemingandsincethentheorganizationhasbeencommittedto“welcomeyoung

peoplefromallnationalitiestoaneducationalcommunitythatfostersapassionforexcellence

alongwithmutualrespectandunderstanding”(TASIS,‘AboutUs’section,Website).Fromthis

extract of the school’s mission statement we can see how their community is highly

internationalandthusenrichingthestudentbodywithvariousculturaltraditions,valuesand

perspectives that only add to the virtues of this academic institution and create a more

dynamicorganizationalculture.Thepurposeofthecommunicationauditistounderstandthe

interactions between the various bodies that compose the entirety of TASIS: The

Administration,Faculty&StudentBody.Throughoutthreeseparateinterviewswithasenior

student,aprofessorandoneoftheDeans,weaskedasetofopen-endedquestionstotryand

understandiftherewereanydiscrepancies/conflictswithintheorganizationalculture,which

could potentially halt the effectiveness of the members’ interactions. We found out that

individuals holding the highest positions in the administration harshly enforce regulations

ontothefacultyandstudentbody,bytakingadominantroleintothedailyactivitiesofmany

professors,whomthensubsequentlydirectthestudentbodywithseverity.Themainissueis

thelackofaproperupwardcommunicationsystem,wherebothfacultyandthestudentbody

could productively voice their opinions and complaints to the administration, hence

improvingtheorganizationaldynamicsandincreaseoverallsatisfaction.

We will first lay the foundations onto which we will build our case by defining what

organizational culturemeans: In order to give a proper definitionwewill break this term

down into twocomponents, organizational& culture,henceproviding the readerswith the

understanding that “culture consists of the abstract values, beliefs, andperceptions that lie

behind people’s behavior; they are shared by members of a society, and when acted on,

producebehaviorconsideredtobeacceptablewithinthatsociety”(M.J.Papaet.Al,2008,Ch.

6, p. 129). Therefore when we combine the definition of culture and attach it to an

organizationalframeworkweconveythesensethatanorganization,justlikeanation,isable


2

tocreateitsownsetsofvalues,traditionsandperceptionsinordertofosteragreatersenseof

unityandbelongingamongthemembers. In the fieldofCommunicationStudies therearea

number of scholars and theorists who look at this topic from different perspectives: First

there is the Traditionalist perspective, which focuses on organizational effectiveness and

viewscultureasasetofobservablefactorsthatcanbemanipulatedandrearrangedinorder

to generate higher productivity. There is the Interpretivist perspective, which seeks to

understand the social interactions and dynamics that are formed among members of the

organization,itsmainthemeisstatinghowpeoplearetheorganizationandtheirinteractions

continuously shape and change the overall culture. Last but not least there is the Critical-

Interpretivistperspectivethatfocusesonunderstandingthepowerstrugglesthatexistwithin

the different subgroups of an organization and wants to identify how “members develop

shared and conflicting meanings to accomplish individual and organizational goals” (M. J.

Papaet.Al,2008,Ch.6,p.133).Inordertoconductaproperresearch,anauditorhastolook

at theoverall pictureandbeable to assess the characteristicsof theorganizational culture

fromallthreeperspectives.

Wefirstmetwiththestudentonthe10thofFebruary2016,wherewediscussedaboutTASIS’

regulations, rolesofconductand the informalcommunicationsystemthatexistsamong the

students, also known as horizontal communication, as well as the one existing among

studentsandfacultyprofessors;definedasverticalcommunication.Fromtheresponsesour

teamunderstoodthatstrictregulationswereputinplace,tocreateorderamongthestudents’

dailylivessuchas:

• Lightsoutinthedormitoriesat11pm

• Noshoweringafter10pm

• Properdresscode(mandatorytowearTasisuniforms)

• Havewrittenpermissionswheneverleavingthecampusduringaweekend

• Mandatory attendance to yearly-sponsored events (winter formal ball, conferences,

theatricalperformancesetc.)

The interviewwith the professor happenedon the sameday, February10th,where hewas

eloquentandhonestaboutdisbursinganydetailsandcommentsthatneededtobeaddressed,

especially about the existing problems within the organizational culture: He briefly

mentionedwhatthestudenthadalreadysaidaboutthevariousregulationsunderwhichthe

student body is subjected to, including the strictness of such rules and how many times

studentswouldhavedifficultyincomplying,whichresultedinimmediatereferralsthatledto


3

punishments or restrictions from certain activities. The professor then focused on the

peculiar behavior about some members of the administration, who as careful observers,

monitor the faculty verydiligently and are alwayson the lookout for anywrongdoing. The

professor emphasized on their desire to control everything that a faculty member does,

worried that somewould not comply exactly with the school’s regulations. He specifically

mentionedtheomniscientroleoftheHeadmasterinmanyoftheHighschool’sactivitiesand

how the board of directors constantly influenced the faculty, forcefully imposing the

organization’sregulationsoverevery,minisculedetail.ThefinalinterviewwiththeDeanwas

conductedonthe24thofFebruary2016,wherewecouldfinallyhavetheperspectiveofthe

administration on the interactions that occur with the faculty and student body. We

addressed thekey factors thatwe collected from theprevious interviews,whichultimately

addressed the communicational conflicts and possible disruption of the organizational

culture’sintegrity.ItwasinterestingtofindouthowdifferenttheperspectiveoftheDeanwas

comparedtotheprofessor’s:FromtheDean’sunderstandingTASIS’verticalcommunication,

from student body to faculty and from faculty to administration, was very smooth and

efficient.Heexplainedhowadministratorsinteractdailywiththefaculty,shareopinionsand

constantlyengageindiscussionstocomeupwitheffectivesolutionstoanupcomingproblem.

Evenmoresimplisticwas theway theDeandescribed thecommunicationprocessbetween

administrators and students, where face-to-face interactions was ordinary and any

complaintscouldbeopenlyexpressedandthetwopartiesproductivelycooperatedtofinda

solution.Weunderstoodthattherewasasubstantialgapbetweentheprofessor’sandDean’s

responsesandthatanunderlyingproblemwasnotproperlyaddressed,whichifstatedwould

haveprovidedcloseresemblancewhencomparingtheanswersofthetwointerviewees.

Inshort,thereisa lackofawarenessaboutthecommunicationconflictsthatoccurbetween

the administration and the faculty. The Dean states that interactions are constant and

effective,althoughtheprofessormentionedhowonlyselectedmembersofthefacultycould

joinadministrativemeetingsandbeabletovoiceopinionsandoffernewideas.Thisrestricted

upward communication conveyed a clear dominance on the hierarchical level, where the

administrationallowsonlycertainchannelsofcommunicationtoarrivetothemandmostof

theinteractionispresentedinadownwardfashion.Thislackofexpressioncreatedaunique,

new informal communication between the student body and the faculty. Because certain

professors felt theywere excluded from administrativemeetings, their level of compliance

towardsregulationsdiminishedandthey interactedmorewithstudents inorder toreacha


4

healthybalancebetweencuttingoutsomeirrelevantrulesandmaintainothersforthesakeof

jobsecurityandavoidingpunishments.

Thebeginningof thisparagraph talksabout theconsequencesof theauthoritative/coercive

manner in which the administration runs the organization; however the purpose of our

researchistounderstandthedrivingcausesforthesephenomenatooccurinthefirstplace:

Wehavecometoaconclusionthatwithintheadministrationthereisadominantsubculture

that is composed of the Headmaster and the board of directors; these individuals share a

paradoxical characteristic in which they could be physically removed from the school’s

campus, however their hegemonic presence influences and/or directly controls the way

facultymembersbehaveandperformtheirduties.Thisresearchbroughttolightaclassiccase

ofconflictthatcanexistbetweenownershipandcontrol,whereweseehow“themeaningthat

possessionshold for anowner contribute to theowner’s identity as [he/she] begins to see

him/herselfreflectedinandpartiallydefinedbythosepossessions”(B.M.Galvinet.Al,2015,

p.170).ThisquoteexplainshowthelegacyofthefounderM.CristFlemingwaspassedonto

her daughter Lynn Fleming (TASIS, ‘About Us’ section, Website), who is currently the

chairmanoftheBoardofDirectors,andthisnotionofpersonalownershipplacesapowerful

senseofentitlementaboutthecontroloftheorganization.Tobetterexplainthiscasewecan

statethat“individualsmayhighlyidentifywiththeorganization,meaningthattheyseelittle

differencebetweentheiridentityandtheorganization’sidentity;betweentheirinterestsand

theorganization’sinterests”(B.M.Galvinet.Al,2015,p.163).Understandingthisconnection

iscrucialinconveyingtheowner’swillingnesstoimposeregulationsandrolesofconductthat

she perceives are appropriate. This attitude towards considering someone’s own believes,

valuesandperspectivesequaltotheorganizationisaclearsignofNarcissisticOrganizational

Identification,which“meansthe individualseeshis/her identityascentral tothe identityof

theorganization,with the result that the individualperceives theorganization’s identity as

beingsecondaryandsubsumedwithintheindividual’s identity”(B.M.Galvinet.Al,2015,p.

164).

Because the owner has an overwhelming sense of responsibility towards the way the

organization should be run, she will make sure that the subordinates comply with the

regulations and that every member accepts and applies her values. This type of control

expressesclearsignsofmicromanagement;whichoccurswhenanindividual“overseestheir

workerstoocloselyandspendsanexcessiveamountoftimesupervisingparticular[details]


5

and telling people exactlywhat to do and how to do it” (R. D.White Jr., 2010, p. 72). The

micromanagement phenomenon is fosteredwhen certain characteristics in an organization

arepresentandlookingatTASIS’organizationalstructure,wecanseeitcloselyresemblesa

“scientificapproach,[which]revolvesaroundunityofcommand,centralizeddecisionmaking,

specialization of tasks, predetermined rules, and formal communication” (C. Koermer & J.

Petelle,1996,p.26).Wheneverydecisionistakencentrally,whethertheissueofthematteris

highlyimportantorsuperfluous,itconveysasenseofdistrustthatthemembersoftheboard

and the headmaster holdwhenever they try to allow facultymembers to act on their own

discretion,dependingon thecaseandcontextathand.Theway the faculty isbeing treated

canbecomparedtothe“Leader-memberexchangetheory(LMX);[explaining]thatmanagers

who are reluctant to delegate, and become possiblemicromanagers, are those that show a

lackofconfidenceinsubordinates’capabilities,seetasksasbeingtooimportanttobeleftto

subordinates,orviewthetasksastoocomplexortechnicallydifficult”(R.D.WhiteJr.,2010,p.

73).Thetypeofhierarchicalsegregationcreatedbythis‘higher-group’oftheadministrative

bodyisnotaveryefficientwayinunderstandingtheupcomingissuesandconflictsthatmay

arisewithintheorganization;“suchhierarchicalcontrolexcludesmanyofthekeymembersof

the staff and revolves around only certain individuals, making it difficult for voices to be

heard”(C.Koermer&J.Petelle,1996,p.28).Thiscaseisespeciallyprevalentamongthelower

end of the hierarchy,with student body-to-faculty relations, since only certainmembers of

facultyareallowedtoattendadministrativemeetings,beable toexplain thecurrent issues,

whilethestudentbodyiscompletelycutoutfromthedecisionsoftheHeadMasterandBoard

ofdirectors.

Wenowgobacktotheoriginalpointwherefacultyprofessorsandstudentswoulddevelopan

informalwayofcommunication,inordertofillthesignificantvoidthattheformalstructure

created,inordertoeasethelifeofthestudents,maketheirengagementwiththefacultymore

fun/positive and at the same time making the professors’ jobs more enjoyable. This

phenomenondescribedbytheprofessors’willingnesstoapproachstudentsasapeerrather

than amonitor could closely resemble the Instructional Humor Processing Theory (IHPT),

which “predicts that students become more motivated to process course content because

positive affect is createdwhen their instructors use successful humor and fortunately this

study suggests that such humormotivates all students to bemore actively involved in the

learning process.” (A. K. Goodboy ET. Al, 2015, p. 56). We believe that this innovative

approach to teachingwillhavepositiveeffectsnotonly in theacademiccareerofastudent


6

butalsobenefithis/hereverydaylifeoutsideoftheclassrooms.Althoughwewouldallenjoy

an organizationwith loose regulations and allowing itsmembersmore freedomonhow to

interactandperformtheirduties,wehavetorememberthatthisparticularcasetalksabout

anacademicinstitution;specificallyaninternationalHighschool.

The student body is composed of 400 individuals, where about 150 of them live in

dormitories and away from their homes and loved ones,while the remaining live close by

with their families or other legal guardians. Themajority of these students are under-aged

and, especially for thosewho live indormitories,TASIS claimshuge responsibilityover the

safety and care of these pupils. Parents put great trust into the representatives of this

institutionandthuswecanunderstandwhyregulationsmaybesostrictwheneverrevolving

academiaandthestudent’sdailylives.Itisevidentthat“ononehand,theschooldoesn’twant

tobeknownasa‘jail’wherestudentshavenofreedomsandareforcedtoobeyastrictcode,

whereas on the other hand the school doesn’t want their students getting in trouble and

developing [the] reputation of an institution that cannot keep their students safe” (J.

Binkhorst&S.F.Kingma,2012,p.925).Fromthisquotewecanconveytheneedforahealthy

balancebetweenregulationsandconcessions,wherestudentsunderstandtheimportanceof

rules, however the administration and faculty understand the need for students to freely

makedecisions in theirdaily lives and social interactions. Fromoneof our sourceswe can

understand the two extremes of the spectrum, defined by “the path of high-reliability-

organization (HRO) whereby the school concerns heavily with safety and takes full

responsibility,orbecomea low-reliabilityorganization(LRO)wheresafety isnotaprimary

concern and the school doesn’t have to take as much responsibility for their students” (J.

Binkhorst & S.F. Kingma, 2012, p. 914). A compromise between high-reliability and low-

reliabilitycouldbethegoldenmeanforthisinstitution,howevertheschooloftenfollowsthe

suggestionofitsinvestors(i.e.theparents)ratherthanitscustomers(i.e.thestudents);thus

TASIS has come to choose the HROmodel that “satisfies parents who send their children

there, but the kids are not happy about it since they are not givenmuch freedom and are

requiredtogothroughnumerousbureaucraticprocedures.Whilsttheparentsarehappy,the

kids arenot and grow in an environment of highdependency” (J. Binkhorst& S.F.Kingma,

2012,p.928).

Herewearriveatapointofstallinourresearch,wherewenolongerhaveevidencetoback

our further statements, hencewewill have to speculate and create hypothetical scenarios


7

wheretheorganizationcouldtakedecisivesteps into improvingthiswarpedorganizational

communication:FromthenotionsofrenownedscholarsNancyE.Fenton&SueInglis,wecan

concur that “an integration perspective is characterized as having organization wide

consensus, consistencybetween the intentoforganizationalvaluesandemployeebehavior,

and the absence of ambiguity” (N. E. Fenton& S. Inglis, 2007, p. 338). The authors convey

these factors as essential in the integrative process for themembers of an organization, to

gaina real senseofbelonging, fosteraharmonious communityandcomplyeffectivelywith

theorganization’srules.Oncemembershavebeenproperlyintegrated,theorganizationhas

to accept the fact that regulations will not be followed exactly in the manner that was

originallyintendedbythecreatorofsuchrules;thusitiskeytoidentifythat“adifferentiation

perspectivefocusesoninconsistenciesandtheexistenceofsubculturesthatarecharacterized

as different from thenorm” (N. E. Fenton& S. Inglis, 2007, p. 338). SinceTASIS is such an

international community it is normal that certain individuals belonging to various cultures

may interpret regulations differently and perceive the organization’s identity in their own

uniqueways.Itistheroleoftheadministrationandfacultytoeffectivelycooperatewithsuch

differencesand findcommonground inorder tominimizeconflictand tensionsasmuchas

possible.

The real question then emerges:What couldbe an effectiveway inwhich the organization

couldgatherdifferentpointsofview,commentsandsuggestionsfromthestudentbodyand

faculty? In order to come up with an innovative solution, “the findings reinforce the

importanceoftheroleoftheboardofdirectorsandexecutivedirector[i.e.thechairman]to

examineorganizationaldatabygatheringperspectivesfromalllevelsoftheorganizationand

various functional roles” (N.E.Fenton&S. Inglis,2007,p.346).Thisquoteemphasizes the

importanceofgatheringasmanydifferentperspectivesaspossible,fromstudentsandfaculty

membersofdifferentbackgrounds.Peoplewill feelmore included into the solutionmaking

process,thusmotivatethembyknowingthattheirorganizationvaluestheiropinions.Oneof

themainrolesoftheadministrationandtheboardwouldbetobringmembersoftheTASIS

community together and “everybodymust genuinely feel they are part of whatmakes the

schoolsystemmoresuccessfulandtheirinputandevolvementiscrucial”(J.Sack-Min,2015,

p. 49). Thanks to the huge advancements in technologies, specifically talking about

InformationandCommunicationtechnologies(ICT),ithasbecomesomucheasierandrapid

toexchangemessagesandsharehugeamountsofdata;theauthoragreesthat“socialmedia

and digital technologies have been game changers for engaging students, parents, staff


8

internalandexternal”(J.Sack-Min,2015,p.48).ICT’shavebeenatruerevolutionintheway

organizations can spread information internally and externally, however in moments of

misunderstandings,whenmembersofacommunityneedtoconfronteachotheranddebate

over certain aspects of a topic to find common ground, face to face interactionmaybe the

most effective medium of communication. It is important to acknowledge “there are also

times when bringing people to town hall-style meetings and speaking to them directly in

person is theright thing todo” (J. Sack-Min,2015,p.48).Thisquotecanbe translated into

TASIS’ context and understand how open meetings with representatives of the

administration,where the facultyandstudentbodycan fosteranewmethodof interaction,

willallowall levelsof theorganizationtocometogetherandvoicetheiropinions,giveeach

other feedback, thus collectively find a solution to the current challenges that TASIS faces.

These examples show how such small changes could take place, where the administration

opens up to its own community, meanwhile delivering positive results and establishing a

morestableorganizationalculture.

Method:Qualitativeinterviews

• Onthe10thofFebruary2016weinterviewedtheSeniorStudentandtheProfessor,for

30minuteseach(roughly).

• Onthe24thofFebruary2016weinterviewtheDeanforabout45minutes.

Theseweretheoutlinedopen-endedquestionsthatweaskedeverysingleinterviewee(the

discussiondevelopedfurtherwithimprovisedquestions):

1. WhatdoyoudefinebyOrganizationalCulture?

2.WhatisTASISobjectiveandultimategoal?

3.DescribethemostcrucialfactorsofTASISindefiningtheformalstructure:Suchas

regulations,objectives/goals,civicdutiesthatformtheculture.


9

4.DefineanddescribethemostcrucialfactorsofTASISindefiningtheinformalstructure:

Suchasstudentgroupdynamics,extra-curriculaactivities(sportsclubs,theateretc.)

socialactivities(bars,clubs,shoppingetc.).(QuestionforStudentonly)

5.Whataresomeoftheregulations/rolesofconductthatcouldpotentiallyconflictwith

theinformaldynamics?

Quantitativesurvey

ThissurveywasdistributedelectronicallytotheseniorclassofTASISsincewebelievedthey

haveabetterunderstandingoftheorganization,itsregulationsandcanpresentahigherlevel

ofmaturitytotakethesurveyseriously.WesentthesurveytotheDeanweinterviewed,who

distributedittoalltheseniorstudents,hopingtoreceiveaminimumof30completedsurveys

forthestatisticalsignificanceofouraudit.

Thesurveyquestionswerebasedonlikertscaleandmultiple-choicecriteria.

The likert scale can be easily explained as a linear grading, where a spectrum of possible

choicesisgivenandtheparticipantwasabletochooseonlyoneoption:

Ø Inourcasethefullspectrumwascomprisedinto5digits,rangingfrom1to5

Ø 1stoodfor‘stronglydisagree’,2‘disagree’,3‘neutral’,4‘agree’and5meant‘strongly

agree’

Once the responses were provided, numerous histograms were made for each individual

question, showing the total frequency of 1-5 digits that were being selected by the whole

samplesize.

Whenalltheresponseswerecollected,everycategoryreceiveda‘best-desirablescore’,which

showedwhatwouldbethebestpossiblegrade,ifstudentswereto‘stronglyagree’witheach

statementprovided.Outofthe30questions,27areaccountedforthistest,sincetwoofthem

cannotbequantifiedintoalikertscalesetupandoneofthemisourownpersonaladditionto


10

theoriginalorganizational-culture survey template;whichwasprovidedby communication

theoristCalW.Downs(1977)(C.W.DownsET.AL,p.266-267).Thereforethebestdesirable

scoreforeachquestionwouldbe325,sincethetotalnumberofparticipantswas65students,

hence(65x5=325).Aftereachcategory’sscorehasbeencalculated,theneveryresultwillbe

summed up into one final grade, which will allow us to understand how successful the

institutionwasatmaintaininganeffectiveorganizationalculture.

In addition to this calculation we also evaluated the average score that each question

received,thenfoundthetotalaverageofall65responsesforeachquestionandlastbutnot

leastwecreatedatotalaverageforeachcategory,wherewecalculatedtheaverageofallthe

questionsthatpertainedtooneofthespecificcategories;callitthe‘averageofallaverages’.

Results

Thesamplesizeallowedustoconductstatisticallysignificantanalysisandunderstandwhich

questionshadagreaterweightonthefinalconclusionofthecommunicationaudit.Thesurvey

questionsweredividedamongspecificcategories;totesttheoverallresultsofeachcategory

and understandwhich set of questionswere yielding themost positive, negative ormixed

results.Herearetheresultsforeachcategory:

Morale(Score:1501outof2275)

TASISpromotesaproductiveworkingrelationship

(1-1.5%,2-9.2%,3-33.8%,4-36.9%,5-18.5%)

TASISmotivatesmetoputoutmybestefforts (1-6.3%,2-12.5%,3-28.1%,4-34.4%,5-18.8%)

TASISrespectsitsstudents (1-10.9%,2-9.4%,3-20.3%,4-46.8%,5-12.5%)

TASIStreatsstudentsinaconsistentandfairmanner

(1-17.2%,2-10.9%,3-32.8%,4-31.3%,5-7.8%)

Studyingherefeelslikebeingpartofafamily (1-12.7%,2-12.7%,3-22.2%,4-25.4%,5-27%)

ThereisanatmosphereoftrustatTASIS (1-14.1%,2-17.2%,3-28.1%,4-31.3%,5-9.4%)

TASISmotivatesstudentstobeefficientandproductive

(1-12.5%,2-12.5%,3-31.3%,4-34.4%,5-9.4%)

InformationFlow(Score:856outof1300)

Igetenoughinformationtounderstandthebigpicture

(1-3.1%,2-12.5%,3-23.4%,4-32.8%,5-28.1%)


11

Whenchangesaremade,thereasonswhyaremadeclear

(1-15.6%,2-25%,3-21.9%,4-28.1%,5-9.4%)

Iknowwhatishappeninginotherclassesoutsideofmyown

(1-17.2%,2-28.1%,3-20.3%,4-26.6%,5-7.8%)

IgettheinformationIneedtoprepareproperlyformyclasses

(1-3.1%,2-4.7%,3-26.6%,4-42.2%,5-23.4%)

Involvement(Score:806outof1300

Ihaveasayindecisionsthataffectmyacademiccareer

(1-11.1%,2-11.1%,3-23.8%,4-27%,5-27%)IamaskedtomakesuggestionsabouthowIcouldperformbetterinmyclasses

(1-12.5%,2-25%,3-17.2%,4-29.7%,5-15.6%)TASISvaluestheideasofthefacultyandstudentbody

(1-6.3%,2-17.5%,3-33.3%,4-27%,5-15.9%)Myopinionscountinthisorganization

(1-16.9%,2-29.2%,3-27.7%,4-24.6%,5-1.5%)

Supervision(Score:1805outof2600)Academicrequirementsaremadeclearbymyprofessors

(1-1.6%,2-11.1%,3-11.1%,4-46%,5-30.2%)

WhenIdoagoodworkmyprofessorstellme

(1-4.8%,2-11.3%,3-16.1%,4-46.8%,5-21%)Myprofessorstakecriticismwell

(1-11.1%,2-19%,3-39.7%,4-22.2%,5-7.9%)Professorsdelegateresponsibility

(1-4.8%,2-9.7%,3-35.5%,4-43.5%,5-6.5%)Myprofessorsareapproachable

(1-1.6%,2-6.3%,3-25.4%,4-41.3%,5-25.4%)MyProfessorsgivemecriticisminapositivemanner

(1-4.8%,2-3.2%,3-34.9%,4-44.4%,5-12.7%)Myprofessorsaregoodlisteners

(1-3.2%,2-9.7%,3-38.7%,4-41.9%,5-6.5%)ProfessorstellsmehowI’mdoing

(1-3.2%,2-22.6%,3-27.4%,4-35.5%,5-11.3%)

Meetings(Score:712outof1300)

DecisionsmadeatFaculty&administrationmeetingsgetputintoaction

(1-13.3%,2-8.3%,3-56.7%,4-16.7%,5-5%)EveryoneatTASIStakespartindiscussionsatmeetings

(1-31.1,2-27.9%,3-24.6%,4-13.1%,5-3.3%)Discussionsinmeetingsstayontrack

(1-13.3%,2-10%,3-41.7%,4-30%,5-5%)


12

Timeinmeetingsistimespentwell (1-15%,2-20%,3-33.3%,4-25%,5-6.7%)

If students could form meetings with the facultyandadministrationtodiscussoverissues,itwouldtap greater creative potential for overall problemsolving

(1-0%,2-3.1%,3-26.2%,4-41.5%,5-29.2%)

This survey included a whole array of questions, exploring various aspects of TASIS

organizationalcultureandourtaskwastofocusspecificallyontheissueswebelievedcreated

the greatest communicative barrier among the different bodies that represented the

institution.Ofthetablesshownabove,wehavehighlightedtheresponsesfromthequestions

that pertain to the scope of this communication audit, which consisted on understanding

whether or not the administration can or cannot establish an efficient upward channel of

communicationandincludethefeedbackofthestudentbody.Wethought11questionstruly

resembledwhatthestudywantedtoconveyandwecollectedthemfromthevariousenlisted

categories:

Ø Morale

Accordingtothedatamostofthequestionsregardingthisrealmoftheorganizationalculture

indicated thatstudentsarebeingmotivated toeffectivelyperformtheirdailyactivities.One

questionstuckoutinparticular(TASIStreatsstudentsinaconsistentandfairmanner),where

alotoftheanswerswereregardedas3-neutral,32.8%ofthetotalresponses,anditwasthe

question that received the most strong disagreement, response 1, at 17.2% of the total

responses. This led us to infer that many students had conflicting experiences, where

sometimestheyweretreatedfairlythoughoncertainoccasionstheywerenot.Howeverour

presumptions to this particular question are limited, since TASIS is a broad generalization

thatincludesboththefacultyandadministration.Thereforewedon’tknowwhichdepartment

orwhowastreatingthestudentsunfairly.

Ø InformationFlow

Thequestionwhich caught our attentionwas ‘Whenchangesaremade, thereasonswhyare

made clear’andwewitnessedmixed results, (1 - 15.6%, 2 - 25%, 3 - 21.9%, 4 - 28.1%, 5 - 9.4%)

whichcouldsuggestthatthedecision-makingwithintheschoolexcludesalotofthestudents

and only occurs on the top levels of the administration; the responses from studentswho

disagreedwiththisstatement(Responses1&2thattotal40.6%),founditunclearastowhy


13

changes were made, which shows a communication distortion that occurs within the

downwardchannelsofinteraction;fromtoptobottomofthehierarchy.

Ø Involvement

Fromthefirstquestionweseehow54%(onlyincludingresponses4and5combined),agree

that studentshave a say indecisions that affect their academic career.While45.3%, again,

onlyincludingresponses4&5,agreethatstudentsareaskedtomakesuggestionsabouthow

they could perform better in their classes.While the results from these two questions are

definitelyapositivefactortostate,wesawthatinthethirdquestion‘TASISvaluestheideasof

the faculty and student body’, there was a sudden increase in the percentage of neutral

responses(33.3%),whichsuggestedonceagainthatstudentshavemixedfeelingsaboutthis

aspectofTASIS’performance.Thelastquestionisverysimilartothepreviousone,howeverit

isphrasedinamuchmorepersonallevel,‘Myopinionscountinthisorganization’,andwecan

see how the results in this one are verymuch contradicting: quite a significant amount of

neutralresponsesat27.7%,withsimilarscoresfortheopposingviewsbetweenagreeing(#4)

24.6%anddisagreeing (#2) 29.2%.These results show thatwhilst opinions of the student

bodytendtohaveaninfluenceonthedecisionsmadebythefaculty,asshownbythefirsttwo

questions, it does provide a more neutral/negative opinion when asked if the students,

regardingtheirindividualopinions,weretakenintoconsiderationbytheinstitution.

Ø Supervision

Thetwoquestionsthatwewantedtofocusonaskedwhetherornotprofessorstakecriticism

well and if they are approachable. The responses regarding criticism were mostly neutral

(39.7%) and leaning towards a positive result (22.2% agreed).Whatwas reassuring came

from the overall positive remarks that students had towards their professors about how

approachable theycanbe,whichshowedhow41.3%agreedwith thestatementand25.4%

strongly agreed; this conveyed a good level of communication and interaction among the

studentbodyandfacultythatsustainsouroriginalclaimofthetwobodiesestablishingamore

productivemodeofinteractiontoincreasecomplianceandcooperation.

Ø Meetings

Thisfinalcategorywasessential inordertobackouroriginalclaims,regardingTasis issues

aboutthelackofproperupwardcommunicationchannels:Thefirstquestion‘Decisionsmade

at Faculty & administration meetings get put into action’ shows us how 56.7% of the


14

respondents gave aneutral answer; entailinghow there are conflictingopinionswithin the

studentbodyandmorethanhalfoftheparticipantsbelievethatthisstatementdoesn’tfully

reflect the institution’s currentmanagement. The second question ‘EveryoneatTASIS takes

part in discussions atmeetings’presented an overwhelming majority (59%) of the student

body stating that they either disagreed or strongly disagreedwith the statement. This last

result clearly shows how there is a lack of feedback from the student body that could

potentiallybenefit theadministration’sdecisionmaking.Keepingall theprevious results in

mind,wecouldsaythattheproblemlieswiththeadministration’sabilitytocommunicateand

allow the students to get involved in theproblem solvingprocess, not a lackof interaction

with their professors. The last question in this category reinforces the idea that students

wouldlovetheopportunitytoformmeetingswiththeadministrationandfaculty,todiscuss

overvariousissues,helpingTASIScomeupwithmoreeffectiveandmeaningfulsolutions;in

fact 70.7% agreed or strongly agreed about the implementation of this new form of

communication.

The following table shows the final results that were collected from the 27 quantifiable

questionsthatpertainedtotheoriginalsurveytemplateandincludedalltheresponsesfrom

the65participants:

The‘actualcategorysums’ofcourseaddsupthetotalscoreforeachcategoryandthe‘desired

categorysums’showsthe‘bestdesirablescore’iftheinstitutionwereabletogainastrongly

agree on every question, from every student. The column that says ‘percentage of

achievement’ signifies thepercentageofsuccessfulness that the institutionhasbeenable to

achieveoutof the total score.Wehave topointout that these resultsdonot represent the

opinionof theentireseniorclass,norof theentireTASISstudentpopulation;nonethelessa

samplesizeof65studentsdoesprovideagoodestimateofwhattheentirepopulationwould

convey.FromwhatthetableportrayswecanseehowTASIShasgainedthebestscoreinthe

‘supervision’sectionandthisresultdefinitelybacksupourpreviouspresumptions:showing

howstudentsaremost satisfiedwith theirprofessors’performancesandhow theyconduct


15

theirclasses.Thelowestscorewasappointedtothe‘meetings’category,onceagainproviding

strongerevidencethatstudentsarenotsatisfiedinthewaymeetingswithinthefacultyand

administration are carried out, as well as the student body being cut out of the decision

makingprocessorfromthepossibilityofvoicingtheiropinionsandshareideas.Theaverage

testalsoconcludedonthesameremarks:

CATEGORIES: TOTAL AVERAGE FOR EACH CATEGORY MORALE 3,30 INFO FLOW 3,29 INVOLVEMENT 3,13 SUPERVISION 3,47 MEETINGS 2,74

Thistableshowshowthe‘supervision’sectionacquiredthehighestaverageoutof5possible

points(3,47/5)andthe‘meetings’categoryacquiredthelowestaverage(2,74/5).

Conclusions:From the results acquired in this communicationauditwe can say that the senior students

seemtobesatisfiedwiththeoverallperformanceoftheirinstitution.Theoneaspectthatthis

researchwanted to highlight is the absence of an effective upward communication system,

whichwould allow for a reciprocal exchange of ideas and opinions thatwould only foster

greater sense of unity and belonging within TASIS’ organizational culture. Majority of the

participantseitheragreedorstronglyagreedthatallowingthestudentbodytoparticipateto

the meetings of the administration and faculty would establish better problem solving

processesandmakethestudentsfeelliketheytrulycountintheorganization,knowingthat

theycancontributetopositivechangeintheirhighschool.EverybodythatconstitutesTASIS:

whethertheadministration,thefacultyorthestudentbody,eachmemberoftheorganization

willbeableto interpretandreact totheorganizationalculture innumerousways; thus“an

organizationalcultureisaplacethatgeneratesconsensualorcontestedmeanings”(M.J.Papa

ET.AL., 2008, p. 142).Thisquotewants to address thepossibility that certainmembersof

TASIS will not comply directly with the rules and regulations, because the culture of this

institution may not reflect the believes, values and traditions of those individuals. A

proposition that could potentially be implemented would be a TASIS Student Committee

(TSC),whereaselectednumberofstudents,fromeachgrade,wouldbeelectedbytheirpeers


16

eachyearandtheserepresentativeswillbegiventhetasktogatherandprioritizethemost

prominentissuesandconcerns,inordertoinfluencethedecisionoftheadministration;with

thehopethatstudentstoowillbeabletolearnhowtocometogetherandcollectivelychannel

their ideas in an effectivemanner. It is easy to acknowledge thememberswho praise the

actionsoftheinstitutions,howeverthetruecompetenceofanyorganizationishowitcandeal

with conflicts and “it may be more important to gain an understanding of the contested

meaningsthatcreatestrugglesfor[students]”(M.J.PapaET.AL.,2008,p.142).Thiscourseof

actionwilldefinitelyencouragestudentstostandupforthemselvesandlearnhowtobehave

andactinapseudodemocraticprocess;thesevaluesandexperienceswillonlyenrichTASIS’

curriculumandgenerategreatersatisfactionamongitsstudentsandfacultymembers.

Citations:

1. Binkhorst,J.,&Kingma,S.F.(2012).Safetyvs.reputation:riskcontroversiesinemergingpolicynetworksregardingschoolsafetyintheNetherlands.JournalOfRiskResearch,15(8),913-935.doi:10.1080/13669877.2012.686049

2. Downs,C.W.,Berg,D.M.,&Linkugel,W.A.(1977).Theorganizationalcommunicator.NewYork,NY:

Harper&Row.

3. Fenton,N.E.,&Inglis,S.(2007).Acriticalperspectiveonorganizationalvalues.NonprofitManagement&Leadership,17(3),335-347.doi:10.1002/nml.153

4. GALVIN,B.M.,LANGE,D.,&ASHFORTH,B.E.(2015).NARCISSISTICORGANIZATIONAL

IDENTIFICATION:SEEINGONESELFASCENTRALTOTHEORGANIZATION'SIDENTITY.AcademyOfManagementReview,40(2),163-181.doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0103

5. Goodboy,A.K.,Booth-Butterfield,M.,Bolkan,S.,&Griffin,D.J.(2015).TheRoleofInstructorHumorand

Students’EducationalOrientationsinStudentLearning,ExtraEffort,Participation,andOut-of-ClassCommunication.CommunicationQuarterly,63(1),44-61.doi:10.1080/01463373.2014.965840

6. Koermer,C.,&Petelle,J.(1996).ScientificManagementinHigherEducation:ConcernsandUsing

CollaborativeSchoolManagementtoImproveCommunication.JournalOfTheAssociationForCommunicationAdministration,(1),25-39.

7. Papa,M.J.,Daniels,T.D.,Spiker,B.K.,&Daniels,T.D.(2008).Organizationalcommunication:

Perspectivesandtrends.LosAngeles:SagePublications.

8. Sack-Min,J.(2015).CommunicationiskeyforBaltimoreCounty.EducationDigest,(4),47.

9. TASISTheAmericanSchoolinSwitzerland:AboutUs.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttp://switzerland.tasis.com/page.cfm?p=2

10. WhiteJr.,R.D.(2010).TheMicromanagementDisease:Symptoms,Diagnosis,andCure.PublicPersonnel

Management,39(1),71-76.

comm audit paper

Documents