Institutional Culture Change

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.13169/intecritdivestud.4.2.0031
• Published date: 23 September 2022
• Date: 23 September 2022
• Pages: 31-46
• Author: Malekutu Levy Bopape
• Subject Matter: institutional culture,social inclusion,systems thinking,transformation,dimensions

Institutional Culture Change

A Social Inclusion Approach

Malekutu Levy Bopape

Leadership and Transformation, University of South Africa

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the paper is to explore the architecture of the institutional culture

with the aim of proposing a programmatic template to use to implement culture

change initiatives in the higher education (HE) sector in South Africa. The need for

institutional culture change has been agged in numerous studies as a barrier in the

implementation of substantive and qualitative transformation. Through document

analysis, this paper argues that the problem in implementing institutional culture

change interventions aligned with the humanising mission of the sector is related

to the failure to adopt a social inclusion approach that is based on a systems think-

ing paradigm. The paradigm is a holistic analysis of a system with the purpose of

identifying elements of that system, which this research manifests and explicates.

The ndings of the research show that changing institutional culture is inextricably

linked to the objectives of transformation. Second, the article highlights the sig-

nicance of adopting the social inclusion framework, including understanding the

politics and practices of social inclusion.

KEYWORDS

institutional culture, social inclusion, systems thinking, transformation, dimensions

Background

The purpose of the paper is to explore the architecture of the concept “institutional culture”

and subsequently propose a programmatic template to implement institutional culture ini-

tiatives in the higher education (HE) sector in South Africa. The need to change the

institutional culture has been flagged in various policy and research studies as a barrier in

the implementation of substantive and qualitative transformation agenda in the HE sector

(Adonis & Silinda, 2021). Among weaknesses identified in these reports and studies were

the failure to adopt systems thinking in understanding and implementing institutional cul-

ture change initiatives. Literature defines the systems thinking paradigm as a holistic and

integrated analysis of a system to identify its conneed for a stakeholder compact as a collec-

tive and co-construction development and implementation of an effective institutional

DOI:10.13169/INTECRIT DIVESTUD.4.2.0031

32 MALEKUTU LEVY BOPAPE

International Journal of CRITICAL DIVERSITY STUDIES 4.2 December 2021

culture change programme.stituent parts and ther interconnectedness (Acaroglu, 2017).

The paradigm also highlights the importance of understanding how these elements interact

and influence each other in the system context to achieve a specified purpose. In this regard,

the social inclusion approach functions as a methodology that enhances this understanding

of the HE transformation system and can ameliorate the achievement of equity, inclusion

and social as well as epistemic justice.

Through document analysis, this paper makes the argument that the failure to imple-

ment effective institutional culture interventions is related to the contestations regarding the

role of HE in a transforming and democratising society. It is for this reason that it is critical

to have a “sufficient” sectoral and institutional consensus regarding the aim of HE transfor-

mation (Badat, 2020; DoE, 2008; USAF, 2015). For this paper, transformation must, as

USAF (2015) states, be understood as a “comprehensive, deep-rooted and ongoing social

process”, which seeks to achieve “fundamental reconstitution and development”. It is a

“simultaneous process of eradicating all forms of unfair discrimination” through the “active

removal of any institutional, social, material, and intellectual barriers in the way of creating

a more equal, inclusive, and socially just higher education system”. It entails “designating a

range of social, economic, cultural and political conditions and their institutionalised set-

tings” (p. 2). If there is sufficient consensus regarding the purpose of transformation, the

possibility of designing and implementing effective institutional culture change initiatives

and programmes is boosted. This will augment the potential of moving from ideological

engagement with the concept of transformation into the realm of pragmatism.

The article is divided into four sections. First, it provides a background, including the

rationale for institutional culture change. Second, the paper deals with the conceptual, defi-

nitional and programmatic challenges encountered in trying to understand the concept

“institutional culture”, its manifestation, as well as the link to transformation; third, the

paper applies the social inclusion framework as a driver of substantive and qualitative

change in the sector. The paper concludes wit h a call for a ll stakeholders to subscribe to a

“shared” vision, values and goals to ensure that the HE sector can respond to its liberating

and humanising mission rather than the economic and labour market logic of the neoliberal

agenda (Badat, 2017). This mission is measured by the achievement of various “forms” of

justice, including social and epistemic justice (Georgalis et al., 2015).

Institutional Culture: Conceptual, Definitional and

Programmatic Challenges

The concept “institutional culture” is used quite frequently in organisational research, but

no consensus has been reached regarding its meaning, applicability and implications for

organisational theory, management and behaviour (Allaire & Firsirotu, 1984; CHE, 2007;

Cross & Carpentier, 2009; Higgins, 2007a, 2007b; Jacobs, 2012; Meek, 1988; S chein, 1990;

Smircich, 1983; USAF, 2015; Vice, 2015). According to Smircich (1983), there are different

meanings associated with the concept, together with their implications for organisational

theory and management. For example, Gaus, Tang and Akil (201) state that culture has been

used in two main ways in organisations, including higher educat ion institutions (HEIs).

First, as a means “to foster the change pro cesses” and second, as a “tool for helping