Strategic Planning, Institutional Identity, and Branding in Public Comprehensive Universities

• In Event: Marriott Roundtable Session 69
  In Roundtable Session: Higher Education Branding as a “Sea of Sameness” Demands Actions by Institutional Leadership and Management

Abstract

This study examines relationships among strategic planning, institutional identity, and branding at four public comprehensive universities in the U.S. Each institution had undergone a strategic planning process that sought to strengthen enrollment and enhance revenues and prestige. These institutions operate within the same state system, but each institution has its own board of trustees and each institution undertook the strategic planning process with a high level of autonomy. Nevertheless, the strategic planning process led to greater convergence in institutional identity and branding. The distinctive characteristics of each institution (each operated within a unique “niche” in the state system) were downplayed; instead, the four institutions developed strategic initiatives that largely mirrored each other. Specifically, each institution began to pursue its own internationalization initiative, community engagement initiative, student advising initiative, and research capacity initiative.

Interview data were collected from 51 faculty members and 40 administrators, in roughly equal numbers across the four campuses. The enrollment management office at each institution provided marketing and advertising materials, which were used as study data. The study also examined each institution’s website designed for prospective students. Neo-institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), and theories of emergent organizational strategy (Mintzberg, 1994) informed the data analysis.

At each institution, the strategic initiatives began to reshape institutional identity, as faculty and administrators noted a shift in emphasis from teaching to research, from regional student populations to national and international markets, and from faculty autonomy to more centralized control. At two institutions, the university’s role in regional economic development became more prominent in how organizational members described the institution’s identity. At one institution, study participants described how the institution was becoming more “student centered,” but some viewed this as an outgrowth of the commodification of higher education where institutions are trying to enhance “customer satisfaction.” At two institutions, faculty expressed concerns that the strategic planning process had shifted the curriculum away from the liberal arts, toward professional fields. These shifts in institutional identity were accompanied by branding messages in websites and marketing materials that included new thematic messages: international opportunities for students, opportunities for careers in STEM fields, opportunities to conduct research with faculty, and campus amenities to attract students.

This convergence in institutional identity and branding might be attributable to reductions in public funding that have led institutions toward more market-oriented behaviors to attract student enrollments and tuition revenues (Morphew & Eckel, 2009; Weerts, Freed, & Morphew, 2014). Another explanation relates to these institutions operating within the same state system. The presidents and senior administrative teams of each institution routinely communicate with each other, and they encounter similar accountability demands from state government. State systems of higher education typically prefer some level of mission differentiation among institutions in the system, to avoid unnecessary duplication of academic programs and educational services (Huisman, 1998). But in this case, administrative and accountability practices in the state system led to greater homogeneity in institutional identities and to less differentiation in the brands of these four institutions.

Author

• Jay R. Dee, University of Massachusetts Boston