2012

Business, Society and Government Consortium Midwest Business Administration Association

[JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT]

Volume 4, Issue 1 July 2012

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, SOCIETY, AND GOVERNMENT

Executive Editor:

Dr. Steven C. Palmer

Associate Professor of Business Chair –

Division of Business Northwestern

Oklahoma State University

709 Oklahoma Boulevard

Alva, OK 73717

Editor:

Dr. Don Yates

Associate Professor of Management

Information Systems

Louisiana State University Alexandria

8100 Hwy 71 S

Alexandria, LA 71302

Reviewers: Dr. James Bowen

Dean, School of Professional Studies

Northwestern Oklahoma State University

Dr. James Breyley

Associate Professor of Business

Northwestern Oklahoma State University

Dr. Michael Daily

Associate Professor of Economics

University of New England

Dr. Adena Lejeune

Associate Professor of Accounting

Louisiana State University – Alexandria

Dr. Tomas Lopez-Pumarejo,

Associate Professor

Brooklyn College

Dr. George McNary

Assistant Professor of Business Law

Creighton University

Dr. Donald Morris

Associate Professor, Accountancy

University of Illinois at Springfield

Dr. Lawrence Price

Assistant Professor

Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota

Dr. Michael Snipes

Assistant Professor of Economics

Eastern New Mexico University

Dr. Kimberly Soulek

Assistant Professor of Business

Northwestern Oklahoma State University

Dr. John Stockmyer

Associate Professor of Marketing

Eastern New Mexico University

Dr. Lee Weyant

Associate Professor of Management

Kutztown University Dr. Donald Yates

Associate Professor of Business

Louisiana State University at Alexandria

3

CONTENTS

Christ and Business: A Survey of How

Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture Typology Has Been Applied to Business ........................................ 4

Thomas Kratzer

The Mortgage Interest Deduction: The Regressive Tax Benefit .................................................. 16

Andrea Ridenour, Leonard Weld, Raymond J Elson

The MOWST Matrix for Nonprofit Strategic Decision Making .................................................. 29

Michael E. Dobbs, Tristan Pisarczyk

Should BUS 101 be Included in the General Education Curriculum? .......................................... 46

Don Yates, Steven C. Palmer

Telecommuting: Alternative work schedule for faculty in the digital age .................................. 57

Lee E. Weyant, Steve Palmer

4

Christ And Business:

A Survey Of How Niebuhr’s Christ And Culture Typology Has Been Applied To Business

Thomas Kratzer, Ph.D.

Professor and Chair

Department of Business

Malone University

2600 Cleveland Ave. NW

Canton, OH 44709

Phone: 330-471-8368

Fax: 330-471-8563

email: tkratzer@malone.edu

H. Richard Niebuhr's classic book in Christian social ethics, Christ and Culture, was

published in 1951. Almost 60 years later, it is still being read by those interested in Christian

social ethics. In the book Niebuhr developed a typology of five different ways that Christians

may view interaction with Culture. Niebuhr’s typology consisted of two extremes, “Christ

against Culture” and “Christ of Culture”. In between these two, Niebuhr placed “Christ above

Culture," “Christ and Culture in Paradox”, and “Christ the Transformer of Culture”. While there

have been many critiques1 of his typology and the way he defined both culture and Christ, others

have found his typology useful and have adapted it to apply to a subset of culture. Business,

while not all of culture, is a major cultural activity in society. This paper will survey how

Niebuhr’s typology has been modified to apply to Christ and Business.

Siker, in her adaptation of Niebuhr’s typology to business ethics, simply replaced culture

with the word business in each of the five categories. That is, her typology is Christ against

Business, Christ of Business, Christ above Business, Christ and Business in Paradox, and Christ

1 For an example of one such insightful critique, see (Yoder 1996)

5

the Transformer of Business. In each case, she is assuming that business means a capitalistic

business culture. For Siker, those Christians that espouse a Christ against Business view believe

that business is evil and cannot be reformed. For her those in this category cannot do business

ethics because they deny the legitimacy of capitalistic business culture. The Christ of Business

type assumes that business aims and God’s aims are compatible or even the same. Most people

want to do good and so business ethics in this view is primarily for management and tends to use

the language of business and not the language of theology. Those Christians who hold the Christ

above Business or synthesis view, according to Siker, believe that business “needs to be elevated

by means of authoritative, external guidelines.” (Siker 1989, 885) The view of Christ and

Business in Paradox I or dualist view is well described by Bachelder, a congregational pastor.

He states:

Executives should expect that their general and personal callings will exist in tension.

But this tension need not create defeatism and cynicism. It can give rise to alertness and moral

imagination. What executives must do is accept the moral ambiguities of their companies and

yet fully participate in them, trusting all the while in God to open the way to new moral

possibilities. (Siker 1989, 885)

The person following the Christ and Business in Paradox view recognizes that some

decisions in business may require a choice between the lesser of two evils, but the person does

not just ignore injustice or fail to work for the common good. The final view is Christ the

Transformer of Business. For Siker, unlike for some others who have adapted Neibuhr's

typology to business, this transformation includes not only a transformation of individuals but

also “ends in action and social change.” (Siker 1989, 886) Siker does not indicate a preference

for one type or another, but offers her typology as a way that Christian business ethicists can talk

about different approaches to ethics. Since Sikers’ typology is basically the same as Niebuhr’s

with the exception of replacing Niebuhr’s overly broad definition of culture with capitalistic

business culture, the critiques of Niebuhr would also apply. By defining business as the

prevailing capitalistic system, Siker rules out dialogue with other potential alternative systems

such as cooperatives or self contained economic communities.

6

Siker suggest towards the end of her paper, that her adaptation of Niebuhr’s typology to

Christ and Business could be further modified to be useful in typing philosophical business

ethics. This could be done by replacing Christ with “‘Highest Authority’ (which could include

such notions as ‘the greatest good for the greatest number.’)” (Siker 1989, 887) It is not clear

how one would come to a consensus in philosophical ethics as to what should constitute the

“highest authority” or how certain aspects of the typology would be adapted.

Another weakness of Siker’s presentation that she shares with Niebuhr is the lack of

current concrete examples. Lee, McCann, and Ching provide concrete applications of the

different typologies based on interviews with executives in Hong Kong. Lee, McCann, and

Ching interviewed 119 Christian executives in Hong Kong using the Critical Incident Technique

research method. They combined Siker’s adaptation of Niebuhr’s typology with the negotiation

framework of Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton. The negotiation styles of Lewicki, Saunders, and

Minton are dominating, yielding, avoiding, integrating, and compromising. These are combined

as shown graphically in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Typographical framework from Lee et al. (Lee, McCann and Ching 2003, 106)

By combining Siker’s adaptation with a negotiation framework, Lee, McCann, and Ching

state that it is now “possible to understand explicitly the interrelationships among these five

types.” (Lee, McCann and Ching 2003, 106) Because the researchers used the Critical Incident

Technique, the examples for each type are based on a single incident of one executive. This

makes it very explicit that they are not assuming that an executive would always use the same

7

type in every situation. One executive owned a large firm that was located in China. The firm,

while operating legally, regularly had trouble with corruption in the Chinese customs service and

was expected to give bribes. The owner decided to close the firm and take a monetary loss rather

than participate in the culture of bribery. Lee, McCann, and Ching classify this as an example of

Christ against Business Culture or avoidance. Unlike Siker, Lee, McCann, and Ching do not

assume that business refers strictly to a capitalistic system. Rather it refers to whatever business

practices prevail in the surrounding culture. Another executive relayed the story of a public

sector organization not rendering quality service to the customer. For this executive the

prevailing business culture is that the customer is the master and the Bible tells us “to serve our

master as if we were serving Christ.” (Lee, McCann and Ching 2003, 107) Thus he sees no

conflict in meeting and exceeding the customer’s expectations and in that way serving Christ.

This is used as an example of Christ of Business or yielding. Christ above Business Culture is

exemplified by an executive who works for a company whose motto is “Glorify God and Benefit

People.” (Lee, McCann and Ching 2003, 108) This executive, through prayer, experienced an

illumination from God on how to run his business. The executive believes his business grew

because he made God the master. Another executive relayed an incident in which a penalty was

imposed on them by the Chinese Customs office for no reason. The customs office knew there

was no violation and so while assessing a penalty still differentiated in their treatment of this

firm compared to a firm that did actually have violation. While the firm filed a complaint, it

ended up paying the penalty. The researchers classify this incident as Christ and Business

Culture in Paradox because the Christian suffered for “no reason, because there is injustice in the

prevalent business culture.” Finally, Lee, McCann, and Ching give an example of Christ the

Transformer of Business Culture or dominating type. Under the table rebates are common in

Hong Kong, but this firm refused to give any rebates to subcontractors. Once the policy was

known, subcontractors accepted it and no longer asked for rebates. Lee et al. contribute to the

use of Niebuhr’s typology as applied to business in two ways. The first is by giving concrete

examples to illustrate the five different types. The second is by making it explicitly clear that no

one person will consistently fall into any one of the types. A person may decide which type to

use based on the situation.

8

Van Duzer et al. reflect on Siker’s adaptation of Niebuhr’s typology by putting it into a

theological framework of creation, fall, and redemption. In creation, God’s purpose for business

“is to enable humankind to glorify God and participate in God’s creative and redemptive

activity.” (Van Duzer, et al. 2003, 4) The fall corrupted not only people, but also institutions.

Business may use unjust structures or practices to achieve its goals. For Van Duzer et al.

redemption includes “the impact of the cross, the resurrection, the outpouring of the Spirit and

the eschaton.” (Van Duzer, et al. 2003, 6) Based on their understanding of redemption, they

pose several questions: “What happened at the Fall?” (Van Duzer, et al. 2003, 6) “What

happened at the cross? How do we address the ‘already-not yet’ paradox of Scripture?” (Van

Duzer, et al. 2003, 7) And finally, “What will happen at the end of human history?” (Van Duzer,

et al. 2003, 7) Based on the answers to these questions and the use of Siker’s adaptation of

Niebuhr, Van Duzer, et al. created the classification in Figure 2 shown below.

9

Figure 2: Classification based on Fall and Redemption (Van Duzer, et al. 2003, 8-9)

Siker’s purpose was to present a typology for use in business ethics. Van Duzer et al’s

purpose is to give a theological framework for business ethics that provides a rationale for

Christian participation in business. They conclude that “Redemption calls us to participate with

What happened at the

Fall?

Already/not-yet

tension

What happens at the

end of time?

Christ against

Business Image of God erased Not-yet emphasis

Radical

discontinuity—all

works burned up

Christ of Business Image of God slightly

distorted Already emphasis

No radical

discontinuity—works

building future

kingdom

Christ above Business Image of God

distorted In balance

No radical

discontinuity—works

building future

kingdom

Christ and Business in

Paradox

Image of God

seriously marred Not-yet emphasis

Radical

discontinuity—all

works burn up

Christ the

Transformer of

Business

Image of God

seriously marred In balance

No radical

discontinuity—works

building future

kingdom

10

God in transforming business.” (Van Duzer, et al. 2003, 13) They believe that the Fall has

damaged the image of God, but redemption makes it possible to still see business as a “form of

service to our neighbor and ultimately to the Kingdom of God.” (Van Duzer, et al. 2003, 13)

Smith and Steen are primarily concerned with quality guru W. Edwards Deming’s

philosophy of transformation and how it compares to a Biblical idea of transformation. At the

end of their article, they devote a page to discussing Niebuhr’s typology. Even though they are

writing seven years after Siker, they do not reference her adaptation of Niebuhr to business.

Also, they mention only four of Niebuhr’s types and do not mention that he had five types. The

type they do not comment on is Christ and Culture in Paradox. Their description of what the

type Christ above Culture implies is different from that of Siker, Van Duzer et al, Lee, McCann,

and Ching, and Neihbur. Instead of interpreting Christ above (business) Culture as implying that

business needs to be elevated to a higher level, Smith and Steen interpret Christ above Culture to

mean that Christians should be concerned with saving the souls of others. “A Christian with this

view will …use his or her job as vehicle to witness to others on a personal level.” (Smith and

Steen 1996, 37) They give no indication how a Christian who holds the Christ above Culture

position should view business as an institution or how that person should participate in the

prevailing business practices. Their brief description of the other three types does not add to

what has already been discussed in Siker. They do not explicitly state which type they would

place themselves, but their discussion of Deming’s concept of transformation indicates that they

are skeptical of transforming systems or institutions and view transformation through Christ as

something that is for the individual, at least until there is a new creation at the eschaton.

Nonetheless, they seem to favor the Christ the Transformer of Culture type, but with a view that

much of the transformation will be of individuals rather than institutions. Smith and Steen seem

to fall into a category of conservative evangelical Christianity that is concerned only about

individual salvation and not about society as a whole.

Addington and Graves write for non-academics. Like Smith and Steen, they only use

four of Niebuhr’s types but, unlike Smith and Steen, they mention that Niebuhr had five types.

They also leave out the Christ and Culture in Paradox type. Addington and Graves write in the

context of evangelism in the workplace by which they mean the conversion of individuals to

11

salvation in Christ. Their purpose is to tell Christians how they can be “salt and light” in their

place of work. They ascribe action words to the four types that they comment on. Withdraw,

acquiesce, mandate, and influence are ascribed to Christ against Culture, Christ of Culture,

Christ above Culture, and Christ the Transformer of Culture respectively. Those who withdraw

only work in Christian companies and do not associate with non-believers. Therefore they have

no audience to evangelize. This is the Christ against Culture type. In the Christ of Culture type,

workers acquiesce to the surrounding business culture and hope that they remain untainted.

Since they are indistinguishable in the workplace, they are not able to give an evangelistic

message. The Christ above Culture followers, in Addington and Graves understanding, are

arrogant and mandate that others should have their beliefs. Thus they are ineffective in their

evangelism. Addington and Graves indicate clearly that Christians should have the Christ the

Transformer of Culture view or what they describe as the influence view. For them the way to

influence is to be salt and light. They state that this “fourth option, of course, is the path Jesus

took.” (Addington and Graves 2000, 26) This contradicts Niebuhr who indicates that Jesus

would fit in the Christ against Culture type and not in the Christ as Transformer of Culture type.

If the path of influence is the one that Jesus took, it seems unlikely that the authorities would

have seen the need to put him to death. Addington and Graves do not actually address business

culture in any way. They are addressing a conservative evangelical audience. Their only

concern is how Christians in the workplace can evangelize to bring others to Christ.

Tomal did a longitudinal study to determine the views of college students at Wheaton

College, a conservative evangelical college where all students must profess their faith in Christ

to gain admittance. Her survey was to determine student attitudes about the relationship of

Christ and culture and in particular their attitudes about Christ and business culture. She

surveyed students in their first year and in their senior year. She developed four statements that

were to represent four of Niebuhr’s five types. She left out Christ of Culture, perhaps assuming

that an evangelical Christian would feel some tension between business culture and Christianity

and so would not hold that view.

12

Her four statements are:

Statement A (Christ against Culture)

Christians should try to avoid working in a non-Christian business. (Christian

values are not explicitly incorporated into company decisions).

Statement B (Christ and Culture in Paradox)

Christians who work in a non-Christian business should view the organization as

a place to succeed and grow professionally, as long as their faith is not compromised or

weakened.

Statement C (Christ above Culture)

Christians who work in a non-Christian business should view the organization as

a “mission field” in which they can share their faith with co-workers, etc. when opportunities

arise.

Statement C (Christ the Transformer of Culture)

Christians who work in a non-Christian business should view the organization as

a place in which they can try to influence company decisions so that they reflect Christian

principles

(Tomal 2002, 3)

Students used a Likert scale to indicate their level of agreement with each statement and

also ranked the statements in order of preference. The results of her survey are well detailed in

her paper and will not be discussed here. Instead I will focus on how her statements represent

Niebuhr’s types.

Tomal’s statement A, representing Christ against Culture, has similarities to the

description of Addington and Graves of avoidance. But it is not clear how a company whose

decisions explicitly take into account Christian values would operate. Presumably, they are still

13

operating in the predominant capitalistic business culture. Further, who defines what is meant be

a Christian company? About ten years ago, Don Soderquist, the retired vice-chairman and chief

operations officer of Wal-Mart gave a presentation at a conference. Soderquist indicated that

decisions made at Wal-Mart were based on Biblical principles. It does not require much research

into the practices of Wal-Mart to find that a large number of Christians would disagree with his

statement and perception.

Tomal’s statement B, representing Christ and Culture in Paradox, may actually be closer

to Christ of Culture. Tomal, herself, points this out in her discussion. It clearly fits into the

acquiesce category of Addington and Graves. The Christ and Culture in Paradox does not mean

that one does nothing to try to bring about justice. Rather, it means that one is very aware that

there may be times when the decision to be made may be the lesser of two evils.

Tomal’s statement C, representing Christ above Culture, like Smith and Steen’s

understanding of this type focuses on the individual evangelizing to fellow workers to bring them

to Christ. It does not address the issue of elevating business practices to be more in line with

Christian values.

Finally, Tormal’s statement D, reflecting Christ the Transformer of Culture, does not

focus solely on the individual, but does address changing the institution. It is not clear which

statement Tomal agrees with the most, but based on her discussion of the results, it seems to be

statement D.

Since business is a major component of human culture, it is natural that Niebuhr’s

typology would be applied to business culture. Despite the fact that Siker’s article is reprinted in

the textbook, Beyond Integrity: Judeo-Christian Approach to Business Ethics by Scott B. Rae

and Kenman L. Wong, the scarcity of other papers that use this classification scheme implies that

it has not been found to be universally useful to Christian business ethicists. Siker assumes a

capitalistic business environment which limits ethical dialogue with other possibilities or

alternative economic systems that may come out of Christian ethical thought. For example, a

discussion of worker-owned cooperatives does not seem to fit into her adaptation of Niebuhr’s

typology. It does not seem appropriate to a priori rule out ethical discussion of business

14

practices that may fall under the Christ against Culture heading. Smith and Steen and Addington

and Graves have adapted Niebuhr’s typology in a way that would be foreign to him. They focus

on solely on the individual and not on the business culture. Van Duzer et al. give a useful

theological framework for understanding why a person might be placed in each of the five types.

Even if one disagrees with their conclusion, one may find the overlay of their theological

construct with Niebuhr’s typology useful for understanding why those from certain

denominational backgrounds may be more likely to fall into one type. Lee, McCann, and Ching

may have inadvertently helped explain why Niebuhr’s typology has not been found useful in

Christian business ethics. By using the Critical Incident Technique, they focused on a single

decision in the life of the decision maker rather than the overall inclination of Christian

executive. Many people when thinking of a typology for ethical decision making want

something that will give them guiding principles on how to make the decision. The adaptation of

Niebuhr’s typology to business is imposed from the top. That is, the typology is there and then

one must look to see what how it applies. A more useful typology may be formed if one would

look at how ethical decisions are made in business and then, on the basis of similarities, develop

a typology.

15

Bibliography

Addington, Thomas, and Stephen Graves. "Intentional Influence." Life@Work 3, no. 4

(2000): 32-39.

Lee, Kam-hon, Dennis P. McCann, and MaryAnn Ching. "Christ and Business Culture: A

Study of Christian Executives in Hong Kong." Journal of Business Ethics 43 (2003): 103-110.

Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper & Row, 1951.

Siker, Louke van Wensveen. "Christ and Business: A Typology for Christian Business

Ethics." Jounal of Business Ethics 8 (1989): 883-888.

Smith, Thomas M., and and Todd P. Steen. "Deming's Philosophy of Transformation: A

Christian Critique." Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, Fall 1996: 25-38.

Tomal, Annette. "How College Students View the Christian's Role in the Business

World: A Longitudinal Study." Christian Business Faculty Association Proceedings. Boise,

Idaho, 2002.

Van Duzer, Jeff, Randal S. Franz, Gary L. Karns, Tim Dearborn, Denise Daniels, and

Kenman L. Wong. "Toward a Statement on the Biblical Purposes of Business." Presented at

"Business as a Calling/The Calling of Business": The Fifth International Symposium on Catholic

Social and Management Education. Bilbao, Spain, 2003.

Yoder, John Howard. "How H. Richard Niebuhr Reasoned: A Critique of Christ and

Culture." In Authentic Transformation: A New Vision of Christ and Culture, by Stassen, Glen H.,

D.M. Yeager, John Howard Yoder, 31-90. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.

16

The Mortgage Interest Deduction: The Regressive Tax Benefit

Andrea Ridenour

Graduate Student

Master of Accountancy Program

Langdale College of Business

1500 N. Patterson St.

Valdosta State University

Valdosta, GA 31698-0070

Voice: 229-219-5967

Fax: 229-249-2706

anridenour@valdosta.edu

Leonard Weld, PhD

Professor of Accounting and

Department Head, Accounting and Finance

Langdale College of Business

1500 N. Patterson St.

Valdosta State University

Valdosta, GA 31698-0070

Voice: 229-219-5967

Fax: 229-249-2706

lweld@valdosta.edu

(corresponding author)

Raymond J Elson, DBA, CPA

Associate Professor of Accounting

Langdale College of Business

1500 N. Patterson St.

Valdosta State University

Valdosta, GA 31698-0070

Voice: 229-219-1214

Fax: 229-249-2706

relson@valdosta.edu

The home mortgage interest deduction is one of the most popular itemized deductions for

taxpayers. An overwhelming majority of taxpayers support it. Taxpayers who can’t take

advantage of the deduction support it. Does the mortgage interest deduction still make sense

given the need for government revenue to help cut the national debt? Does it promote it’s

purported goal of home ownership? Should the American Dream still be home ownership? Is

the deduction worth the enormous cost? This paper (in our opinion) answers those questions.

Insanely Popular

In July 2011, The New York Times and CBS News polled Americans regarding the

mortgage interest deduction. The poll found that “almost no one favors discontinuing the

17

mortgage tax deduction.” 2 The results of the poll showed that more than 90% of Americans

support the mortgage interest deduction. 1

Another survey performed by Public Opinion Strategies produced similar results. Two

thousand people who are likely to vote in the 2012 elections were surveyed in May, 2011.

Approximately 71% opposed a proposal to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and 63%

opposed any effort to reduce it.3

A proposal to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction is not a new idea. In 2005, the

Advisory Panel on Tax Reform under President Bush recommended completely eliminating the

mortgage interest deduction and replacing it with a significantly smaller mortgage interest tax

credit. In addition, there was also a recommendation to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction

for second homes.

2 McCabe, B. (2011). Despite benefit disparities, middle class supports mortgage deduction. The

New York Times - Five Thirty Eight.

3 Voters strongly support politicians who embrace pro-housing policies, mortgage interest

deduction, poll finds. (2011, June 15). Retrieved from

www.buildingonline.com/news/viewnews.pl?id=10622&subcategory=139.

18

In 2007, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich) proposed elimination of the mortgage interest

deduction for homes larger than 3,000 square feet. That would affect approximately 15% of the

homes in the U.S. The proposal was defeated.4

In 2010, President Obama considered eliminating the mortgage interest deduction for

those making more than $250,000 per year.5 The cut would have affected fewer than 2 percent of

taxpayers. Under the “Zero Plan” option, the government would eliminate most tax loopholes

and deductions to raise an estimated additional $1.1 trillion in taxes, while simplifying the tax

code. A second option would limit the mortgage deduction by excluding second residences,

home equity loans and mortgages over $500,000. These proposals are currently tabled.

What Is The Deduction?

Home mortgage interest is any interest a taxpayer pays on a loan secured by their

principal residence. A residence includes a house, condominium, cooperative, mobile home,

house trailer, or boat. The “home” must have sleeping, cooking, and bathroom faciltities.

Mortgage interest on a second home also qualifies for deduction. The Internal Revenue Code6

allows a deduction for interest paid or accrued on debt to acquire a residence, or interest on home

equity debt. Mortgage interest may be deducted if two conditions are met. First, the taxpayer

must file Form 1040 and itemize deductions on Schedule A. Second, the mortgage must be a

4 Erb, K. (2010). Mortgage interest tax deduction: Does it make sense? Retrieved from

www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/08.

5 Phillips, K. (2010, April 8). Mortgage interest tax deduction: Does it make sense? Retrieved June 27, 2011, from

http://www.walletpop.com/2010/04/08/mortgage-interest-tax-deduction-does-it-make-sense/ 6 IRC Section 163(h)(3).

19

secured debt on a qualified home in which the individual has an ownership interest. In some

cases, mortgage interest can be fully deducted. There are three categories that determine whether

an individual can fully deduct their mortgage interest. These categories include (1) mortgages

that were taken out on or before October 13, 1987, (2) mortgages taken out after October 13,

1987, to buy, build, or improve an individual’s home, but only if throughout 2010 these

mortgages plus any grandfathered debt totaled $1 million or less ($500,000 or less if married

filing separately), (3) mortgages taken out after October 13, 1987, other than to buy, build, or

improve your home (home equity debt), but only if throughout 2010 these mortgages totaled

$100,000 or less ($50,000 or less if married filing separately) and totaled no more than the fair

market value of your home reduced by (1) and (2).5 This second category is important, because

even though it is a home equity loan (i.e., secured by a residence) there is no restriction on the

use of the funds. For instance, rather than paying 6% non-deductible interest on a loan for that

new $110,000 Porsche, use a home equity loan and all the interest is deductible.

Who benefits from the mortgage interest deduction? Not many taxpayers even itemize.

According to the IRS,7 for the tax year 2008 (the most recent year available), only 34% of

taxpayers itemized their deductions instead of taking the standard deduction.

Tax research publishers RIA provides this illustration:8

7 SOI Tax Stats at a Glance 2011.

8 Federal Taxes Weekly Alert Newsletter, Proposals to reform or eliminate the mortgage interest deduction

(July 18, 2011).

20

A married couple who takes out a $150,000 mortgage on Jan. 1, 2011,

payable over 30 years with 7% interest pays $9,584.85 in interest in the first year.

Unless the couple has other itemized deductions, they may simply opt for the

$11,400 standard deduction. If the same couple were to double their mortgage to

$300,000, same interest and term, their interest payment in the first year is

$19,169.71.

Even among taxpayers who itemize, not all take the mortgage interest deduction. In

preliminary 2009 tax data,9 only 26% of all taxpayers claim the mortgage interest deduction.

Who are these taxpayers? Approximately 66% of them are in the income group10

from

$50,000 to less than $200,000.

Home Ownership

One of the main arguments for retaining the mortgage interest deduction is to promote

home ownership. However, the origin of the deduction was the 1913 general deduction for

personal interest.11

Most of the personal interest deduction was eliminated with the Tax Reform

Act of 1986. The only interest that remains deductible is mortgage interest and investment

interest.

9 Individual Income Tax Returns, Preliminary Data, 2009 Statistics of Income Bulletin, Winter 2011.

10 All IRS income groups are based on adjusted gross income. Loosely defined, that is all income less

capital losses.

11 Ventry, Dennis J., The Accidental Deduction: A History and Critique of the Tax Subsidy for Mortgage

Interest (January 05, 2010). Law & Contempary Problems, Vol. 73, p. 233, Winter 2010; UC Davis Legal Studies

Research Paper No. 196.

21

There are several countries without a mortgage interest deduction and so we can compare

home ownership between the U.S. and other countries. Canada is one such country.

The closest Canada has ever come to having the mortgage interest deduction was in

1979.12

According to the International Monetary Fund, “home ownership rates in Australia,

Britain and Canada are higher than in the United States without mortgage interest deduction. The

IMF called U.S. housing policies ‘very complex, expensive and regressive.’”13

A March 2011

report by the Congressional Budget Office14

reported a similar finding. The report states “…the

rate of home ownership here is similar to that in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, and

none of the countries currently offers a tax deduction for mortgage interest.” A senior fellow at

the Tax Policy Center, Robert Williams, offers the same analysis: “…comparable home

ownership rates [exist] in other countries with similar housing markets and demographics to the

U.S., such as Australia and Canada that lack a mortgage interest incentive.”15

If the mortgage interest deduction doesn’t affect home ownership rates, what does? In an

effort to spur housing sales in the U.S., the government offered an $8,000 tax credit to taxpayers

12 Carmichael, K. (2010, November 30). Politicians target U.S. mortgage interest deduction. Retrieved July

16, 2011, from The Globe and Mail:

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTM1MTE5ODQ%3D.

13 Id.

14 Congressional Budget Office (March 2011) Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options.

15 Hirsch (2011, June 3) The Fiscal Times, The Hidden Costs of Cutting the Mortgage Deduction.

22

buying a home.16

That is the equivalent to a 5% down payment on a $160,000 home. According

to a Morgan Stanley report,17

“we see a clear run-up in sales just prior to both the previous

expiration in November 2009, as well as the recent expiration in April 2010.” However, the

authors believe that the main effect of the tax credit was “…to pull forward demand, as opposed

in [sic] creating new demand, at an estimated cost of $22B.”

A Co-Director of Economic Studies at the Brookings Institute18

made a similar

evaluation: “The tax credit is very poorly targeted. Approximately 1.9 million buyers are

expected to receive the credit, but more than 85 percent of these would have bought a home

without the credit. It’s even worse in that most of the new home sales just result in moving

renters to owners, which does not absorb the excess supply of houses.”

As reported in The Fiscal Times,14

the Director of Research at the Real Estate Center at

Texas A&M University stated that most people have strong emotional incentives for buying a

home. “People typically buy a home because they started a family, had a baby and need a bigger

place; just got a promotion and want a nicer place; or just got a divorce and need a smaller place.

All those things create standard demand for houses year-in and year-out – tax credits don’t have

anything to do with them, and people will buy homes whether the credit is there or not.”

16 Christie, L. (2009, February 17) CNN Money, Final Score: $8,000 for Homebuyers.

17 Chang, O., Tirupattur, V., Egan, J. Morgan Stanley Research (2010, September 30) Housing Market

Insights.

18 Gayer, T. (2009, September 24) Should Congress Extend the First-time Homebuyer Tax Credit?

23

Home Mortgage Interest Effects

Since the mortgage interest deduction doesn’t appear to affect home ownership rates, and

tax credits have a short-term effect of “pulling forward demand” what is the effect of the

mortgage interest deduction?

As stated earlier, only 32% of U.S. taxpayers itemize their deductions and are even

eligible to claim the mortgage interest deduction. Only 26% of all taxpayers deduct mortgage

interest. Of the filers who itemize and deduct mortgage interest, 36% have adjusted gross

incomes of $100,000 or above. Filers in the lower income brackets do take the deduction, but

their benefit is much less. A $7,000 mortgage interest deduction is only worth $1,050 ($7,000 X

15%) in tax savings to a taxpayer in the 15% tax bracket. In 2009, the 15% tax bracket applied

to taxable income (not adjusted gross income) up to $67,900 for a couple filing a joint return.

However, for a taxpayer who has taxable income of $140,000 and is in the 28% tax bracket, the

benefit for the same $7,000 mortgage interest deduction is $1,960.

All things being equal, the taxpayers with taxable income of $140,000 will probably live

in a larger home with a larger mortgage and larger mortgage interest deduction. So the incentive

is to buy a larger home, incur more debt, and take a larger mortgage interest deduction.

RIA Tax Publishers provide this assessment:7

“If the deduction was repealed flat out, the Urban-Brookings Tax

Policy Center estimates that the average tax bill of those who claim the

mortgage interest deduction would increase by $710. However this

24

increase would vary widely among taxpayers – those with $30,000 to

$40,000 incomes would face an average increase of $70, whereas

taxpayers making over $1 million would face an average increase of

$4,000.”

The graph below helps illustrate the regressive nature of the deduction.

Source: McCabe, 2011.1

The increased benefit to higher income taxpayers is why many economists label the

mortgage interest deduction a regressive tax benefit. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser called

the mortgage interest deduction “a regressive one that artificially distorts behavior, including

pushing people toward single-family detached houses, while at the same time being poorly

designed to actually promote home ownership.”19

He explains that wealthy families are most

19 Swanson, J. (2011, June 22) Mortgage News Daily, Economists Argue Over Mortgage Interest

Deductibility.

25

likely to own homes and would own them without a mortgage interest deduction. The mortgage

interest deduction only encourages them to take on more debt and own larger homes. He doesn’t

believe government tax policy should encourage people to leave multi-family homes in the urban

areas where they are most likely to work.

Morgan Stanley economists take a broader view of the housing market.15

They cite the

two year recovery in the rental housing market. As single-family delinquencies and foreclosures

rise, and mortgage credit standards tighten, multi-family vacancies are falling. When they

examine the “total market for shelter” they see macroeconomic factors that drive household

formation beginning to increase. These factors include payroll growth and immigration. During

a recession, household formation falls and then as the recession begins to end the pent up

demand pushes household formation above the long-term average. The low construction rates

over the last two years are leading to a shrinking supply of “shelter” as families move into multi-

family dwellings.

The Morgan Stanley economists arrive at the conclusion that “The belief that home

ownership is a right, not a privilege, for Americans led to the ever more aggressive public and

private policies to promote such ownership.”12

Risky mortgages became available to families

without the income to make the payments with the belief that housing prices would always go up

and you could sell in a couple of years and make money. The mortgage interest deduction was

part of the “right” that Americans enjoyed.

A CBO13

report stated that:

26

“The current deduction encourages home buyers who can itemize

deductions to buy houses when they might otherwise rent or, especially, to

buy bigger houses than they would buy if all investments were taxed

equally. Reducing the maximum amount of mortgage debt on which

interest could be deducted … should make many people more willing to

invest in stocks, bonds, savings accounts, or their own businesses rather

than in housing.”

Cost of the Mortgage Interest Deduction

What is the cost to the federal government (U.S. taxpayers) of the mortgage interest

deduction? Naturally, since single-family homes have gotten larger over the last few decades,

mortgages and the mortgage interest deduction has also gotten larger.

Table 1 Deduction for Mortgage Interest on Owner-occupied homes

As Table 1 shows, the size of the mortgage interest deduction is not only increasing

annually, it has increased about 61% just since 2000.

27

The Congressional Budget Office12

reported the cumulative effect of major tax

expenditures for 2010 – 2014. 20

The exclusion/exemption causing the largest deficit increase is

the exclusion from income of employers’ contributions for employees’ health insurance and

long-term care policies with a cost of approximately $675 billion. The second largest is the

exclusion of pension contributions and earnings. These two provisions help almost all taxpayers

who work. The third largest tax expenditure is the mortgage interest deduction, which costs the

government about $484 billion. The major difference between the first two expenditures and the

mortgage interest deduction is that as a percentage of all taxpayers, relatively few taxpayers are

able to enjoy any real tax savings.

Conclusion

Contrary to popular opinion, the mortgage interest deduction was not written into the tax

code as a home ownership incentive. The mortgage interest deduction is one of the few

remaining interest deductions from the income tax law of 1913. Congress originally allowed a

deduction for all personal interest paid. Interest on other debt (car loans, credit cards, etc.) was

eliminated by the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The mortgage interest deduction was restricted, but

not eliminated because of its popularity.

20 Tax expenditures are defined under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 as

"revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or

deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax

liability."

28

Most economists agree that the mortgage interest deduction causes a distortion in the

allocation of family resources. The American dream of owning your own home, the myth that

housing prices always go up, and that real estate is the best investment has in too many cases

encouraged families to incur more debt than is reasonable. Several economists doubt that the

mortgage interest deduction encourages home ownership. They do believe that the mortgage

interest deduction encourages the purchase of larger homes than necessary. Even the effect of

the homebuyers’ tax credit appears to be pulling existing demand from future periods into the

current period. Home purchases spiked before the expiration of the credit and then plunged.

Only about 26% of all taxpayers itemized deductions and claim the mortgage interest

deduction. In 2009, about 9.4% of all taxpayers accounted for 48% of the total mortgage interest

deduction deducted. An estimate by the Joint Committee on Taxation is that from 2010 – 2014

taxpayers will deduction approximately $484 billion of mortgage interest. With an increasing

federal debt, the government simply cannot afford this largess and we think the mortgage interest

deduction should be eliminated

29

THE MOWST MATRIX FOR NONPROFIT STRATEGIC

DECISION MAKING

Michael E. Dobbs, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Management

Eastern Illinois University

600 Lincoln Ave.

Charleston, IL 61920

(217) 581-6925

(217) 581- 6247 (facsimile)

medobbs@eiu.edu

Tristan Pisarczyk, M.B.A.

Director of Operations

St. John's Catholic Newman Center at the University of Illinois

604 East Armory Ave.

Champaign, IL 61820

(217) 344-1266

(217) 344-6606 (facsimile)

t.pisarczyk@gmail.com

Abstract

Nonprofit managers facing lower revenue, higher demand, and calls for increased

managerial expertise are understandably in need of tools to help them navigate their challenging

environments. However, the SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity, threat) framework used

by many nonprofit organizations in strategic decision making has significant limitations. The

relative importance of factors is not specified; how strategic options rate in relation to those

factors are often not assessed; and most importantly for nonprofit organizations, an

organization’s mission or purpose can be underemphasized or not even recognized when a

30

traditional SWOT analysis is utilized. When working with nonprofit consulting clients, we

created the MOWST matrix to address these limitations by adding a mission component, factor

weightings, and rating systems to a standard SWOT framework. We explain this tool, provide

examples of its use, and briefly explore other applications and possible customizations.

Key words: SWOT analysis, nonprofit management, strategy

31

Nonprofit organizations face many of the same strategic dilemmas as for-profit

organizations and have, therefore, incorporated strategic management concepts, ideas, principles,

and techniques into their management and governance. SWOT analysis (i.e., the analysis of an

organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) is perhaps one of the best

known of these activities. However, a SWOT analysis is frequently detached from an

organization’s mission or purpose leading a nonprofit organization to select strategies that may

not be in line with the overarching goals of the organization. In addition, applications of SWOT

analyses are sometimes rather unsophisticated and amount to little more than lists of descriptions

of organizations and their environments with scant thought to priorities. Again, this is especially

true in nonprofit organizations in which managers frequently do not have more formal business

education or training. In an effort to simultaneously address both of these issues, we present a

simple, yet more robust method of adding a mission emphasis to a traditional SWOT analysis

using a weighted matrix format. The mission of a nonprofit organization is emphasized in a

fuller, richer analysis of the internal and external environment of the organization. We call this

tool a MOWST (pronounced “most”) matrix.

SWOT Analysis

Traditional SWOT analysis dates back to at least the 1960’s at the Harvard Business

School (Mintzberg, 1994) where students were taught to identify companies’ internal strengths

and weaknesses along with the opportunities and threats that exist in their external environments.

The technique struck a balance between internal (strengths and weaknesses) and external

(opportunities and threats) perspectives (Barney, 1995), and became diffused throughout

management and other business disciplines. SWOT analysis is, to this day, a staple in many

32

strategic management courses, cases, and textbooks (see Wheelen & Hunger, 2012;

Longenecker, et.al., 2012; Thompson, Strickland, & Gamble, 2008). It is a rather simple concept

and is straightforward for students and practitioners alike to understand and utilize; which, in

addition to its perceived utility, may account for its widespread adoption and use.

However, significant limitations exist when using a SWOT framework. Barney (2002),

points out that a simple SWOT analysis provides no guidance for the organization in identifying

particular strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. It is a useful framework for asking

questions, but fails to provide verifiable components of competitive advantage and certainly does

not provide solutions to strategic dilemmas. Saloner, Shepard, and Podolny (2001) point out that

a traditional SWOT analysis fails to direct decision makers to which individual factors should be

addressed. Of the opportunities listed, for example, which are the most important to capitalize

on? Grant (1998) underscores the arbitrary nature of the factors included in many applications of

SWOT analysis. While others (Dess, Lumpkin, & Eisner, 2010; Pearce & Robinson, 2009)

argue that strategic decision makers may overemphasize one factor using a SWOT analysis or

underemphasize other factors.

In an effort to address some of these issues, extensions and alterations have been made by

various authors and academics over the years. Perhaps the most well known adaptation is that of

Weihrich (1982) with the TOWS matrix. In a such a matrix, evaluation of strategic options in

light of individual strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats are made with “+” and “-“

indicators. In addition, weighting of different list items is mentioned, but no method for carrying

this out is provided.

33

A more fundamental problem with SWOT analysis has not been addressed, however.

That is how an organization’s mission or purpose can be underemphasized or not even

recognized. Perhaps this is due to the implied purpose of profit maximization for many for-profit

firms. But this issue is especially relevant for nonprofits. Mission accomplishment is of

paramount importance for nonprofit organizations. The failure of management to link strategic

choices to mission is a critical failure and one that can happen very easily using a traditional

SWOT analysis.

Nonprofit Management

While a for-profit organization is organized to make a profit and the financial bottom line

is a clear goal and measure (Sheehan, R. M., 2010); for nonprofit organizations, the bottom line

is mission accomplishment (Dees, 2004). Managers of nonprofit organizations face significant

challenges arising from economic events dating to 2008. On the revenue side, investment losses

have negatively impacted potential donors; investments (and income streams derived from these

investments) of many nonprofit organizations have declined (Carlson & Donohoe, 2010); and

state and federal funding levels of some nonprofits are decreasing and/or government agencies

are slow to pay. On the demand side, sustained high unemployment levels, shrinking real

incomes, mortgage foreclosures, shifting social and cultural demographics, and other trends are

leading more and more people to look for assistance from government agencies and nonprofit

organizations (Roy, 2011). In addition, ethical questions surrounding some aspects of recent

financial events (e.g., mortgage crisis, Madoff ponzi scheme, aggressive use of derivatives, etc.)

have led to increased calls for scrutiny, accountability, and transparency in the business world

that have spilled over into the nonprofit sphere (Carlson & Donohoe, 2010). And prior to recent

34

negative financial developments, nonprofit organizations faced increased pressure to adopt best

practices from the for-profit world (Andreasen, Goodstein, & Wilson, 2005), and these pressures

have only increased in the last few years (Thomson, 2011).

Nonprofit managers are increasingly called on to do “more with less” and what they are

able to accomplish is more closely scrutinized (Thomson, 2011). Evaluations of effectiveness

and outcome assessments are becoming expected activities of nonprofits. Some evaluators look

at effectiveness through a business lens: costs going down, market position increasing, client and

funding pools improving, and streamlined operations (Gottfredson, Schaubert, & Babcock, 2008;

Neuhoff & Searle, 2008). Another growing trend is to evaluate nonprofits in regard to their

mission (Crutchfield & Grant, 2007; Foster & Bradach, 2005). The mission is critical to setting

out what impact the organization is trying to achieve (Foster & Bradach, 2005) and central to

examining success and effectiveness (Rangan, March, 2004). The ability to define measures of

success and effectiveness related to mission is a key driver and attraction for both donors and

employees (Bradach, Tierney, & Stone, 2008).

Many nonprofit managers facing lower revenue, higher demand, and calls for increased

managerial expertise are understandably in need of tools to help them navigate this new, more

challenging terrain. Unfortunately, tools frequently used by nonprofit managers may have

significant costs associated with them (e.g., time required to plan, implement, measure, and

evaluate) and these costs impede further organizational use (Snibbe, 2006). Lack of staffing is

related to the cost issue, and depending on the complexity of the measurement, it may require

one or more people to collect and analyze the data. It also requires a certain skill set that many

35

organizations find lacking. Many nonprofit organizations, understandably then, are reticent to

utilize robust strategic decision making tools (Mulgan, 2010).

MOWST Matrix

We propose that nonprofit managers consider using a modification of the traditional

SWOT analysis – the MOWST matrix (see Figure 1). The modifications made to this matrix are

designed to address some of the inherent weaknesses of traditional SWOT analysis and the

reluctance of nonprofit managers to use more robust decision making tools. There are two

primary modifications: 1) it adds a mission component to the analysis, and 2) it adds weighting

to the individual items in the SWOT lists and asks analysts to rate how well strategic options

leverage strengths and opportunities, address weaknesses and threats, and accomplish mission.

By modifying a very familiar decision making tool, we provide nonprofit managers a more

robust tool they are more likely to actually use due to their familiarity with a traditional SWOT

analysis.

36

Figure 1. The MOWST matrix

Adding a mission component to the traditional list of strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities, and threats seems to be a necessary addition for nonprofit analysis. As already

discussed, keeping mission accomplishment at the forefront of strategic objectives is crucial to

the success of nonprofit organizations. The MOWST matrix provides nonprofit strategic

decision makers and analysts the opportunity to evaluate strategic options in light of the

37

organization’s mission, purpose, and/or values on the same level with strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities, and threats. If two strategic actions both look appealing using a traditional SWOT

matrix, but one is more aligned with the organization’s mission, that more appealing strategic

action will now be much more easily identified.

Other criticisms of traditional SWOT analysis have validity in our experience with

students and consulting clients. There is often little thought given as to which items on SWOT

lists are more important than others. Weihrich (1982) suggested that weights could be added to

list items but did not incorporate that into the TOWS matrix. For the MOWST matrix, however,

for each item in each list, a weight is assigned such that the total weight for all items in a

particular list is one. For example, if there are five items listed as strengths, and all are weighted

equally (not recommended, but possible), each item has a weighted value of .2.

Weihrich also outlined using plus and minus signs to indicate whether or not a strategic

option did or did not address list items, but did not provide detailed guidelines for their use. In

the MOWST matrix, strategic options are evaluated on a -3 to +3 scale (+1 and -1 representing

low levels, +2 and -2 representing moderate levels, +3 and -3 representing high levels, and 0

representing no impact or a factor that is not applicable). Positive numbers are indicative of

mission accomplishment, opportunity exploitation, weakness resolution, strength utilization, and

threat neutralization. Negative ratings are used to indicate the degree to which negative

consequences will accompany the implementation of a selected strategy (not simply that there

will be an absence of positive results, e.g., mission accomplishment will actually be hindered to

some degree rather than only not being accomplished).

38

For each strategic option being considered, the rating of how that strategy relates to each

factor item is multiplied times the factor weight to generate a score. The scores are totaled for

each category and then a grand total is derived by summing each of the category subtotals. At

the bottom of the matrix, each strategic option has a score – the higher the score the more

favorable is that strategic option given the internal and external factors facing the organization.

In Figure 2 we provide an example of a MOWST matrix created for a fictional mental

health service provider (based on an actual consulting client, but masked for confidentiality).

The three strategic options considered are: 1) absorb smaller, struggling mental health service

providers in surrounding counties and through economies of scale and use of videoconferencing

achieve further cost savings, 2) use vacant, property owned by the organization and next to an

entertainment district to build a miniature golf course (funded with donations), to generate an

alternative revenue source and create name recognition and goodwill in the community, or 3)

cease serving indigent clients and only serve those with full or partial insurance.

39

Figure 2. MOWST matrix example using fictional mental health nonprofit.

Factor weights vary within each category for each factor item but always sum to a value

of one. Ratings range from -3 to +3. Option 1, for example, would mean that staff would be

used to serve clients from other counties and this may limit the organization’s ability to achieve

the first listed mission component, hence a rating of -1. That rating multiplied times the factor

weight of .30 assigned to the first mission item yields a score of -.30. This is summed with the

40

other mission scores for Option 1 resulting in a Mission Score Subtotal of .45. On mission

criteria alone, Option 1 is inferior to both Option 2 (with a subtotal of 1.40) and Option 3 (with a

subtotal of .90). However, the Grand Total Score of 6.30 for Option 1 is the highest overall. If

this was an actual analysis, the decision makers for this organization would have to weigh the

relatively low level of mission accomplishment for Option 1 versus the high scores in the other

areas. Without the addition of the mission component to the MOWST matrix, this type of

analysis would be more difficult to identify.

Variations and customizations of the MOWST matrix are certainly possible. Factor

weights do not necessarily have to be the same across categories. An organization could have

double the total weight for all mission factors, for example. Also, the rating system could be

simplified (perhaps just plusses and minuses) or made more detailed (positive and negative

scales of 1-10). And of course, the number of items listed under each category could vary from

three to ten or more, and would not have to be the same for each category. The MOWST matrix

is flexible in its structure and allows for easy customization.

Conclusions

The MOWST matrix is an improvement on traditional SWOT analysis in a number of

ways. First, it incorporates mission into the analytical framework which is of critical importance

to nonprofit managers. Second, it allows for more robust analysis due to factor weighting and

ratings for strategic options for each mission, opportunity, weakness, strength, and threat listed.

Third, this more robust tool is somewhat more likely to be used by nonprofit managers since so

many are already familiar with a traditional SWOT matrix. The MOWST matrix can assist

41

nonprofit managers and decision makers in their efforts to accomplish their evermore demanding

missions in a ever-shrinking resource environment.

In addition to its applications with nonprofit organizations, the MOWST Matrix can be

useful for any type of organization for which mission is emphasized greatly. For example, one

of the authors has used the matrix with a small business consulting client whose mission

included spending time doing things he enjoyed and spending more time with his family at the

expense of profit maximization. The matrix was useful in helping the client analyze and weigh

various strategic options and select for implementation actions that were consistent with his

personal goals and values.

There are still issues with SWOT analysis that are not specifically addressed by the

MOWST matrix. The matrix does not provide guidelines as to how the lists are to be developed.

Surface-level lists that are sometimes developed when engaging in traditional SWOT analysis

will still generally lead to poor strategic decisions. Also, a traditional SWOT analysis and the

use of a MOWST matrix are both snapshots in time. They must both be used dynamically to

provide deeper insight into shifting internal and external trends. The matrix can also be used in

ways not intended. For example, the matrix is designed to assist decision makers in processing

information rather than drawing definitive and unalterable conclusions. Although it appears to

involve quantitative measures, the matrix is much more a qualitative tool for decision processing

and its use as a formulaic decision making tool risks its misuse.

However, the MOWST matrix does provide significant refinement of the traditional

SWOT framework in a way that can benefit nonprofit and other types of organizations. Our

42

early use of the MOWST matrix with consulting clients and students has met with very positive

results and further refinements are certainly possible as use continues. This is still merely a tool

and is not definitive by any means. Our hope is that the matrix can assist decision makers make

better decisions, but perfect ones will unfortunately remain elusive. We look forward to

witnessing the evolution of this tool designed to help managers navigate their organizations’ ever

challenging environments.

43

References

Andreasen, A. R., Goodstein, R. C., & Wilson, J. W. (2005). Transferring "marketing

knowledge" to the nonprofit sector. California Management Review, 47 (4), 46-67.

Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of

Management Executive, 9 (4), 49-61.

Barney, J. B. (2002). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage (2nd

ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bradach, J. L., Tierney, T. J., & Stone, N. (2008). Delivering on the promise of

nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, (December), 88-97.

Carlson, M., & Donohoe, M. (2010). The executive director's guide to thriving as a

nonprofit leader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crutchfield, L., & Grant, H. M. (2007). Forces for good: Six practices of high impact

non-profits. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dees, J. G. (2004). Putting nonprofit business ventures in perspective. In Oster, S. M.,

Massarsky, C. W. & Beinhacker, S. L. Generating and sustaining nonprofit earned income: A

guide to successful enterprise strategies. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Eisner, A. B. (2010). Strategic management: Creating

competitive advantages (5th

ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Foster, W., & Bradach, J. (2005). Should nonprofits seek profits? Harvard Business

Review, (February), 92-100.

Gottfredson, M., Schaubert, S., & Babcock, E. (2008). Achieving breakthrough

performance. Stanford Social Innovation Review, (Summer), 32-39.

44

Grant, R. M. (1998). Contemporary strategy analysis: Concepts, techniques,

applications (3rd

ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Business.

Longenecker, J. G., Palich, L. E., Petty, J. W., & Hoy, F. (2012). Small business

management: Launching & growing entrepreneurial ventures. Mason, OH: South-Western

Cengage Learning.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving roles for

planning, plans, planners. New York: The Free Press.

Mulgan, G. (2010). Measuring social value. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 38-43.

Neuhoff, A., & Searle, R. (2008). More bang for the buck. Stanford Social Innovation

Review, (Spring), 33-37.

Pearce, J. A., & Robinson, Jr., R. B. (2009). Formulation, implementation, and control

of competitive strategy, (11th

ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Rangan, V. K. (2004). Lofty missions, down-to-earth plans. Harvard Business Review,

(March), 112-119.

Roy, K. M. (2011, October 10). Nonprofits show optimism despite serious concerns,

United Way survey finds. Hartford Business Journal [On-line]. Available: http://www.

hartfordbusiness.com/news20825.html.

Saloner, G., Shepard, A., & Podolny, J. (2001). Strategic management. New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

Sheehan, R. (2010). Mission impact: Breakthrough strategies for nonprofits. Hoboken,

NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Snibbe, A. C. (2006). Drowning in data. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 39-45.

45

Thompson, Jr., A. A., Strickland III, A. J., & Gamble, J. E. (2008) Crafting and

executing strategy: The quest for competitive advantage: Concepts and cases. New York:

McGraw Hill/Irwin.

Thomson, D. E. (2011). The role of funders in driving nonprofit performance

measurement and use in strategic management. Public Performance & Management Review, 35,

(1), 54-78.

Weihrich, H. (1982). The TOWS Matrix – A tool for situational analysis. Long Range

Planning, 15 (2), 54-66.

Wheelen, T. L., & Hunger, J. D. (2012). Strategic management and business policy:

Toward global sustainability. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

46

SHOULD BUS 101 BE INCLUDED IN THE GENERAL

EDUCATION CURRICULUM?

Dr. Don Yates

Assistant Professor of Management Information Systems

Louisiana State University Alexandria

8100 Hwy 71 S

Alexandria, LA 71302

Dr. Steven C. Palmer

Associate Professor of Business

Chair - Division of Business

Northwestern Oklahoma State University

709 Oklahoma Boulevard

Alva, OK 73717

Abstract

This paper discusses the merits of including a freshman level introductory business

course (generically referred to here as BUS 101) within the General Education Curriculum

(GEC) of a college or university. The paper looks at the background, goals and definitions of the

General Education curriculum and discusses some of the conflicts and tensions found in the

current ongoing debates. It also describes several common models used within the GEC.

The paper then looks at BUS 101 within the above context. It discusses if BUS 101 meets

generally accepted general education objectives and if BUS 101 meets the generally accepted

requirements for a general education social science. It reports on a survey of 50 randomly

selected schools. The paper also will examine the experience at one university which added

Introduction to Business as a general education class.

The paper concludes that although BUS 101 meets the General Education criteria “on

paper”, it is not widely accepted by higher education. The conclusion contains speculation about

why.

47

Introduction

The inclusion of BUS 101 in the General Education curriculum hinges upon two key

questions, which are: “Is Business 101 a Social Science?” and “Does BUS 101 belong in the

General Education Curriculum.”

Key Question 1: Is BUS 101 a Social Science?

Merriam Webster defines Social Science as, “a branch of science that deals with the

institutions and functioning of human society and with the interpersonal relationships of

individuals as members of society.” Many BUS 101 textbooks have definitions, which, generally

define business as the organization of a society that controls the flow of goods and services from

producer to consumer. Given these two definitions, the definition of business fits nicely into the

broader definition of social science.

The Social Science Encyclopedia (Kuper, 1985) lists Business Studies as a subject under

two disciplines, Industrial Relations and Management and under Economics. Several other

disciplines list subjects which are found in most business programs. For example, Mass Media,

Material Culture and Media Effects are found under the Cultural Studies discipline. Similarly,

the discipline Political Theory contains subjects such as Capitalism, Communism, and

Globalization. As shown in Figure 1, a “back of the envelope” study of subtopics indicates that

some of the Business disciplines are more aligned to the Social Sciences than others. In

particular, Economics is often housed in Social Sciences at many universities. However,

Marketing and Management contain substantial social science content.

48

Figure 1 Relationships of the Business Disciplines to Social Science

Key Question 2: Does BUS 101 Belong in the General Education Curriculum.

The short answer to this question is that inclusion of Business 101 within the General

Education Curriculum depends on which General Education model is being used by the school.

There are three dominant models in use today, the Core Model, the Distribution Model and the

Hybrid Model. Business 101 fits the Distribution Model well, the Hybrid Model to some degree

and the Core Model poorly.

General Education Background

49

Definition and Standards of General Education

There are perhaps as many definitions of General Education as there are educators. All

these definitions lie within the overarching concept of curriculum, which can be defined as a

prescriptive set of activities designed to accomplish a set of goals, objectives, or ends. This paper

will use this definition. As seen in Figure 2, the literature references to “general education

curriculum” is undergoing an exponential growth implying that interest in the general education

curriculum is also increasing. This data is based on the Google nGram viewer. (Michel, 2010)

Percentage of all

three word ngrams

in scanned

literterature

Date of publication

Figure 2. Data from the Google Books N-gram Viewer for the nGram “General Education Curriculum”

However, the term curriculum is used to indicate many other concepts such as (1) a list of

all courses taught at an institution, (2) a list of courses needed for a specific degree and the very

broad (3) a compilation all experiences that a learner has within a program of education. See

Tanner, (1990), Schubert (1986), Pratt, (1980), Beyer, (1988) for a full discussion of curriculum.

The GEC then becomes the component of the curriculum which all students must

complete. This working definition of the GEC fits most school curricula. Accrediting bodies also

tend towards this definition. For example, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

50

(Principles of Accreditation: Foundations of Quality Enhancemen, 2004) requires that general

education be “a substantial component of each undergraduate degree.” (Section 2.7.3)

The controversy, at least for higher education, arises when the goals, objectives and ends

of the GEC are defined.

Progression of General Education K-12 and Higher Education

It is generally accepted that curricular flexibility increases as students progress from Pre-

school to Higher Education. Curricula at early levels offer virtually no elective courses while

curricula at advanced levels are predominately elective in nature. The uniformity philosophy

described by educators such as Hirsch (1987) produces an advocacy for inflexible curricula

while the Open Curriculum at Brown University provides the antipode. Most higher education

institutions lie somewhere in the middle.

The progression of General Education also had a time varying component. Figure 3

indicates that in the late 1950’s, interest in general education began to decline as educational

institutions tighten the curricula. Reports such as the Grinter report in engineering and A Nation

at Risk are examples of forces calling for such tightening.

Percentage of all

two-word ngrams

in scanned

literterature

Date of publication

Figure 3 Google N-Gram results for the 2-gram “general education”.

51

Models of General Education

BUS 101 and the Core Model

A school which uses a pure Core Model will specify every course within the General

Education Curriculum. There is very little flexibility. Within this model, students have no

elective courses in the GEC. A pure Core Model is rare but degree plans which implement a de

facto Core Model are sometimes found. It is not uncommon for departments to restrict general

education courses within a degree to specific courses. Examples exist in which 10 out of 13

general education courses were restricted to specific courses. Such restrictions are caused by

advocacy or politics, accreditation issues or lack of faculty council oversight.

Given this, BUS 101 is not a very good fit within a de facto core in that only the business

department would adopt it. Given the minor position of business studies within the social

science context and the limited number of credit hours available, it would be difficult to justify

requiring all undergraduate students take BUS 101 at the exclusion of the more traditional social

science subjects.

BUS 101 and the Distribution Model

A pure Distribution Model places no restrictions on which general education courses can

be used to satisfy the General Education Curriculum requirements. More commonly seen are

Distribution Models which specify broad areas such as Humanities, Sciences, Fine Arts, Social

Sciences, etc. but then allow free choice within those areas. BUS 101 fits well within this model.

BUS 101 and the Hybrid Model

The Hybrid Model is by far the most commonly used model. In this model certain core

courses (typically English(s) and Algebra) are required of all students and the remaining courses

distributed among several areas. Variations of this model range from Columbia College’s

52

interdisciplinary core courses (Columbia College Bulletin, 2012) in Humanities, Mathematics,

Science, etc. to more chaotic curricula which evolved through advocacy and academic politics.

This is the model used by the four schools known to have adopted BUS 101 within the GEC.

Current State of BUS 101 as a General Education Course

In a survey of the webpages of 51 schools randomly selected for all higher education

institutions with business degrees, only two could be identified as including a business course

within its general education curriculum. We were able to find 38 schools which did not include a

business course within the general education course list. The remain 11 did not list their general

education courses.

Further research is needed to determine if (1) this data is valid and (2) if there is an

alignment between the General Education Model adopted and the inclusion of BUS 101 within

the GEC.

NWOSU Experience

Effective with the 2010-2011 Undergraduate Catalog, Northwestern Oklahoma State

University (NWOSU) added Introduction to Business, as well as Legal Environment of Business,

to the General Education Curriculum. NWOSU uses a hybrid general education model (See

Figure 4).

Figure 4

Northwestern Oklahoma State University

General Education Requirements

GENERAL EDUCATION

Ranger Connection

Communication & Symbols

ENGL 1113 Composition I

ENGL 1213 Composition II

SCOM 1113 Intro to Speech Communication

53

MATH 1403 or

1513

Contemporary Mathematics or

College Algebra

Social, Political & Economic Systems

FIN 1113 Personal Finance

HIST 1483 or

1493

US History to 1877 or

US History Since 1877

Leadership

POLS 1113 American Federal Govt. & Politics

Natural Science

BIOL 1114 or

1124 or

1224

General Biology or

General Botany or

General Zoology

4-5 hours physical science, chemistry or physics

HED 2303 Wellness Concepts

Human Heritage & Culture

Foreign Language

Humanities (other than Philosophy or Ethics) &

Culture Elective

Values & Beliefs

Humanities (Philosophy or Ethics), REL or SOC

General Education Electives

Gen Ed Elective

Gen Ed Elective

Gen Ed Elective

Total General Education Hours

The university identifies five categories of General Education classes: “Communication

and Symbols,” “Social, Political and Economic Systems,” “Natural Sciences,” “Human Heritage

and Culture,” and “Values and Beliefs.” Classes to satisfy the nine hours of General Education

electives must be taken from three of the five categories.

As the Division of Business faculty redesigned the curriculum in the 2009-2010 academic

year, it was decided to submit a request to add Introduction to Business and Legal Environment

of Business to the General Education curriculum. The Business faculty’s purpose for this action

was to attract more students into the classes. The thought was that both classes could be used to

54

recruit undecided or questioning students to a Business major. Because most majors at NWOSU

do not have many free elective hours built into the curriculum, the General Education

designation would allow students to take the classes while fulfilling graduation requirements.

The university’s General Education Committee had developed a set of learning outcomes

for General Education classes. Courses meeting these outcomes could be considered for General

Education designation. In looking at the identified competencies, three of them appeared to be

applicable to Introduction to Business:

1. Understand international social, political, and economic systems

2. Understand social, political, and economic systems

3. Understand domestic issues and events

Without objection, the General Education Committee agreed with the Division of

Business proposal that the course was of general interest and met three identified General

Education outcomes. The interesting aspect was the committee assigned Introduction to

Business to the Communication and Symbols category, rather than “Social, Political and

Economic Systems.” NWOSU students can take Introduction to Business as one of their three

General Education electives.

Conclusion

It is easily established that BUS 101 has limited but authoritative acceptance as a social

science. This is established both by definition and by inclusion by social science authorities.

Further argument can be made that a topical analysis of business studies finds many overlaps

between business and widely accepted social sciences such as Sociology, Psychology and others.

55

This overlap is further demonstrated by the fact that Economics is included as a social

science in many schools and as a business discipline in about equally as many. An interesting

question for further research is that there seems to be a geographic component to this distribution

with northern schools using Economic as a social science and southern schools treating it as a

business area.

Philosophically, it would appear that the General Education Model used by a university

would determine if BUS 101 is a suitable general education course. It would seem that it would

be excluded in Core Model schools and adopted in Distribution Model schools. However there

was not enough data to support this perception in this study.

In practice, data would indicate the BUS 101 is not commonly accepted into the General

Education Curriculum in the majority of higher education institutions.

Works Cited

Principles of Accreditation: Foundations of Quality Enhancemen. (2004). Retrieved from SACS:

http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/PrinciplesOfAccreditation.PDF

Columbia College Bulletin. (2012). Retrieved from Columbia College Website:

http://www.college.columbia.edu/bulletin/core/lh.php

Beyer, L. &. (1988). The Curriculum: Problems, Politics, and Possibilities. Albany, NY.

Eisner, E. W. (1985). The Educational Imagination, (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan & Co.

Grinter. (n.d.). Summary of the Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education. Journal of

Engineering Education, September, 1955 pp. 25-60.

Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.

56

Kuper, A. &. (1985). The Social science encyclopedia. Boston: Routledge & Kegan.

Pratt, D. (1980). Curriculum: Design and Development. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility. New York:

Macmillan Publish. Co.

Tanner, D. &. (1990). History of the school curriculum. New York: Macmillan Publish. Co.

57

TELECOMMUTING: ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULE

FOR FACULTY IN THE DIGITAL AGE

Lee E. Weyant, Kutztown University

Steve Palmer, Northwestern Oklahoma State University

Abstract

Increased delivery of online courses and programs are creating a virtual university (VU)

experience which challenges traditional human resource management concepts. Traditional

university staffing involves full-time faculty physically located on campus. This approach may

limit faculty recruitment to those individuals that are willing and able to move to another

university. Corporate America has experimented with telecommuting as an alternative work

scheduling arrangement for employees. This same technique may be adopted by universities but

will challenge the traditional faculty evaluation system based on teaching, scholarly activity, and

service.

(KEYWORDS: Telecommuting, Faculty Evaluation, Human Resources)

Introduction

Higher education, like most organizations, faces multiple forces of change - changing

demographics, fiscal constraints, and emerging information and communication technologies

(ICT). College enrollments are expected to increase by 13% to 23 million students during the

next decade (Hussar & Bailey, 2011). Non-traditional students (i.e., students age 25 and over),

women, and Hispanic students are expected to increase their enrollment at college by 20%, 16%,

58

and 46% respectively by 2020 (Hussar & Bailey, 2011). Not only is the mix of traditional and

non-traditional students changing, some predict more students will seek part-time study over the

traditional full-time study (Dew, 2010). States facing major fiscal problems are reducing their

financial support to state owned colleges and universities as one way to achieve budgetary

equilibrium. In Pennsylvania, for example, Governor Tom Corbett’s 2011-2012 higher

education budget for the state’s 14 Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE)

universities was reduced by over 50%, or $644 million, compared to the previous year (Jackson,

2011). While the approved budget restored over half of the reduction, PASSHE universities such

as Kutztown University absorbed an 18% reduction in state funding for the 2011-2012 fiscal year

(“Kutztown University”, 2011). Pennsylvania is not unique in this situation as universities in

Wisconsin and California haven taken similar approaches to their budgetary crises (Hemmila,

2011; White, 2011). Finally, ICT allow for the collegiate experience (i.e., admissions, course

registration, course delivery) to be digitized and accessed anytime, anywhere from a laptop

computer, smartphone (i.e., iPhone, Blackberry, Android), or tablet computer (i.e., iPad). Over

the last twenty years the evolution of ICT has spawned an entire generation of “digital” students.

These individuals have only lived in a digitized world of the Internet, computers, smartphones,

and iPods (Oblinger, 2003; Palfrey & Gasser, 2008; Pleka, 2007; Robinson & Ritzko, 2009;

Tapscott, 2009; Tapscott & Williams, 2008). These “digital”, or Net Gen, students expect

customization, collaboration, and speed (Oblinger, 2003; Tapscott, 2009; Tapscott & Williams,

2008). They expect flexible learning environments that takes “place where and when they want

it” (Tapscott, 2009, p. 77).

These dynamics of change challenge higher education to redefine their operational

model. Currently the predominant model is based on a fixed-facility model with faculty and

students sharing the same space and time for professors to share the results of their research

(Twigg, 1994). Today this paradigm is shifting toward a new model, a "virtual university,"

where students can “pursue their higher education from anywhere and at any time” (Dew, 2010,

p. 47). Many colleges have incorporated online learning (OLL) and blended learning (i.e., a

mixture of face-to-face (F2F) instruction and OLL) as a step toward the virtual university. For

example, from 2002 to 2009, the number of individuals enrolled in at least one online course

59

increased by nearly 20% (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Colleges of business accredited by The

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) reported that the percentage of

schools offering at least one online program rose from 9% in 2001-2002 to 24% in 2008-2009

(“AACSB members”, 2010). This increase in OLL may be a conscious strategic decision as

business schools view “technology-mediated educational programs as a means of differentiation

and of gaining a competitive advantage” (Alavi & Gallupe, 2003, p. 139).

The virtual university (VU) embraces technology for delivery of the higher education

experience. Browning (2008), citing Porter, Hedegaard, and Straat (1997), describes the virtual

university as a place “where students, faculty and staff learn, instruct and administer in a virtual

space rather then in brick and mortar buildings” (p. 13). This approach to higher education

challenges traditional human resource (HR) management concepts of centralized faculty and

staff in one physical location. Some institutions describe their VU on the basis of OLL delivered

to non-residential campus students (e.g., Penn State World Campus, Western Governor’s

University) (Epper & Garn, 2004). Other colleges apply the concept of a VU to any OLL

experience on campus. Both generic types of VUs provide HR management challenges for

higher education administrators. For example, does the faculty have be centralized in one

physical location or can they be dispersed to work from any location? What are the faculty

evaluation implications for a dispersed workforce? This paper focuses on the use of an

alternative work schedule, telecommuting, for full-time business faculty involved in OLL.

Specifically, this paper provides a general framework for faculty performance evaluations as

they exist today and considers how a telecommuting faculty member can demonstrate

comparable performance with their on-campus counterparts.

Faculty Evaluations

Faculty evaluation systems are based on a triad of criteria - teaching, scholarship, and

service. This system is used for annual renewal, tenure, and promotion decisions in both union

and non-union academic environments. For example, Article 12 of the 2007-2011 Collective

Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education

(PASSHE) and the Association of Pennsylvania College and University Faculties (APSCUF)

outlines the three main criteria for faculty evaluations - effective teaching, continued scholarly

60

growth, and service to the community, department, college, and university (“Agreement”, 2007).

The CBA further states that these evaluation criteria applies to “temporary faculty, regular part-

time faculty, probationary non-tenured faculty, tenured faculty, and all applicants for promotion”

(“Agreement”, 2007, pg. 23). Per the CBA, behavioral samples for each of the three criteria

include (“Agreement”, 2007)

• Effective teaching may be demonstrated through an assessment of student evaluations,

peer evaluations, syllabi, and quality of academic advisement.

• Continued scholarly growth is demonstrated through such items as a research publication

record, development of experimental programs (i.e., distance education), and

participation in professional organizations.

• Service involves participation in community, department, college, and university

committee assignments, APSCUF activities, and membership in professional and

community organizations related to the faculty members discipline.

Northwestern Oklahoma State University (NWOSU), a non-unionized regional

comprehensive university, uses five criteria for faculty evaluations according to their Faculty

Handbook (2011). NWOSU faculty are evaluated on teaching, professional development,

scholarly activity, institutional involvement, and community service (“Faculty Handbook”,

2011). Faculty demonstrate their performance in each area through such behaviors as (“Faculty

Handbook”, 2001):

• effective and stimulating course delivery and instructional design for teaching proficiency

• participation in discipline related professional organizations and continuing education for

professional development

• published research demonstrates scholarly activity

• participation in university committee assignments demonstrate institutional involvement

• participation in discipline related community and civic organizations demonstrates

community service

Professional accrediting agencies such as the Accreditation Council for Business Schools

and Programs (ACBSP) and the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

(AACSB) incorporate the faculty evaluation triad within their accrediting standards. For

example, ACBSP Standard 4 addresses the effectiveness of teaching through a systemic

evaluation of student learning measured through outcomes assessment (“ACBSP”, 2011).

61

AACSB includes a similar assurance of learning assessment through several accreditation

standards (“Eligibility procedures”, 2011). ACBSP Standard 5 includes an outline of faculty

responsibilities including student advising, scholarly activities, community service, and business

and industry interaction (“ACBSP”, 2011, p.34). AACSB includes similar faculty

responsibilities through standards 2, 9, and 10 (“Eligibility procedures”, 2011). Both ACBSP

and AACSB accreditation includes an evaluation of the institution’s faculty evaluation system in

terms of tenure and promotion (“ACBSP”, 2011; “Eligibility procedures”, 2011).

This limited sampling demonstrates a perceived consensus of the faculty evaluation

system used in the traditional collegiate setting. As the VU emerges there is no reason to believe

that HR management will not continue this method for faculty evaluation. HR knows this

evaluation system works in a fixed facility with on-campus faculty members. The question

becomes how such a system could be implemented in a VU approach where the faculty may be

geographically dispersed using alternate work scheduling techniques.

Telecommuting

Telecommuting in General. Telecommuting is an alternative work schedule where

employees work from home or other off-site locations connected to the office by ICT (Apgar,

1998; Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Browning, 2008; Gibson, Blackwell, Dominics, & Demerath,

2002; Ng, 2006). Nearly 26 million individuals telecommuted in 2010 according to a

WorldatWork study (Ozias, 2011). Some HR professionals believe telecommuting options help

to “attract and retain the best and brightest employees” (Meinert, 2011, p. 34). According to

Meinert (2011), 82 of the Fortune 2011 “100 Best Companies to Work For” offer

telecommuting. This quest for alternative work scheduling provides employers and employees

with possible advantages. These include:

• Higher productivity (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Gibson et al., 2002; Martinez-Sanchez,

Perez-Perez, de-Luis-Carnicer, & Vela-Jimenez, 2007; Ng, 2006; “Planning”, 2008

“What are some”, 2011)

• Retain key workers (Gibson et al., 2002; “Planning”, 2008)

• Reduce commute time and costs for employee (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; “Planning”,

2008)

• Decreased overhead costs in terms of office space, utilities (Bailey & Kurland, 2002;

“What are some”, 2011)

62

• Work-Family balance (Ng, 2006)

On the other hand, telecommuting poses some disadvantages such as:

• Loss of face-time and interaction with co-workers (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Gibson et

al., 2002; “Planning”, 2008)

• Feeling isolated (Ng, 2006; “Planning”, 2008)

• Security of information (Gibson et al., 2002)

Telecommuting in Higher Education. Operationally, union and non-union academic

environments combined with professional accrediting agencies have equivalent criteria for

faculty evaluations. It is the contention of this paper that evaluation triad does not change in the

digital age. What changes are the tools used by faculty and administration to evaluate the

performance of telecommuting faculty. Teaching, for instance, will remain a fundamental

criteria of faculty in the digital age. The difference will be in the instructional design and

delivery of the learning experience. Telecommuting faculty will require pedagogical skills

necessary to develop and deliver asynchronous online and synchronous web-conferencing

learning experiences. Course management systems like Blackboard, Desire2Learn, and Moodle

provide the infrastructure for many institutions to deliver online courses. Telecommuting faculty

may need to teach in both asynchronous and synchronous modes. This will be required to meet

the course scheduling needs of the institution and the students. Synchronous learning will be by

the telecommuting faculty using web and video conferencing systems such as MegaMeeting,

GoToMeeting, and Polycom. Through these systems faculty recruitment is no longer limited to

the individual who is willing and able to move. Now, a college can recruit full-time faculty

nationwide to teach synchronous courses. From a teaching perspective, physical location of the

faculty member is not important, the focus remains clearly on the faculty member designing an

educational experience that meets the learning objectives of the course.

Faculty scholarly activities involves the production of intellectual contributions for

publication. ACBSP and AACSB classify these contributions for business faculty as scholarship

of discovery, integration, application, or teaching (“ACBSP”, 2011; “Eligibility procedures”,

2011). Creation of intellectual contribution by today’s faculty, individually or collaboratively,

involves the use of online databases (i.e., EBSCO, ProQuest) maintained by the campus library.

63

Production of collaborative research by on-campus or telecommuting faculty involves the use of

email or collaborative software such as Google Docs. The metric of scholarly activity remains

the same for telecommuting faculty - conference proceedings and peer reviewed journals.

The service component typically implies faculty self-governance activities, professional

membership, and community outreach. ICT provides the means for telecommuting faculty to

meet the general standards of faculty service. Schools like NWOSU with geographically

dispersed campuses currently use ICT (i.e., Polycom, MegaMeeting) to conduct committee

meetings. Recently, a NWOSU faculty search committee conducted an interview with a

candidate using MegaMeeting. One NWOSU faculty member was located at the Enid,

Oklahoma campus, another NWOSU faculty member was located at the Alva, Oklahoma

campus, and the candidate was located in Pennsylvania. This video conferencing interview

demonstrates that faculty members can be geographically dispersed to conduct committee work

such as recruitment. While the concept has been demonstrated, a university would need to

consider some additional logistical support for a telecommuting faculty member to serve on a

faculty search committee. For example, due to the personal information contained in the

collection of vitas, transcripts, and letters of recommendation, faculty search committees would

probably not want physical hard copies of these documents to be shipped around the country for

geographically dispersed faculty members to participate in the search committee. However, by

requiring applicants to submit electronic copies of documentation combined with administrative

support to the search committee to scan non-electronic documents, a digital portfolio of each

candidate can be developed and then placed on a secure university server for only the search

committee to access. Other departmental, college, and university committee work can be

achieved in similar fashion using ICT.

Service in support of professional organizations does not require a faculty member to be

physically located on the university campus. A management faculty member may have

membership in the Academy of Management (AoM), Society for Human Resource Management

(SHRM), and the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD). Each of these

professional associations have local chapters and convene a national conference.

Telecommuting faculty can participate in these professional organizations by attending the local

64

chapter meetings, holding office at the local or national level, and attending the various

conferences. This is the same level of participation as their campus counterparts.

Community service can also be achieved by a telecommuting faculty member. What

constitutes the institution’s community? If institutions adopt a narrow definition, then

community refers to the geographical area in which they draw their student population. Under

this definition, a telecommuting faculty member using ICT could work solely, or collaboratively

with campus faculty, on a project for a “local” community organization. If institutions adopt a

broader, global perspective of community, then any work by telecommuting faculty in their

hometown area would satisfy the community service standard.

Summary

The digital age, leveraged by ICT, is creating new organizational models. For corporate

America, a new organization structure will be a virtual corporation producing products or

services based on customer demand (Davidow & Malone, 1992). Similarly, higher education

will create a virtual university in response to the shift from faculty-centered instruction to on-

demand educational services. The increase in online educational delivery of programs and

courses represents a portion of this paradigm shift. Today’s digital age allows for organizations

to challenge the underlying assumption about an employee’s physical presence at the work site

as a metric for employee performance. Corporate America has experimented with

telecommuting as an alternative work schedule to address this presumption about the nature of

work. This same approach may have application in higher education where the faculty

evaluation system focuses on teaching, scholarship, and service. By using ICT telecommuting

faculty have similar opportunities to meet this triad of faculty performance.

Telecommuting is not a panacea for higher education. Higher education administration

needs to consider this alternative work schedule as part of their overall strategic analysis.

Telecommuting may provide universities with human resource (HR) opportunities to attract

65

individuals that may otherwise be overlooked in a traditional faculty search. As a HR strategy

universities need to consider the mix of telecommuting faculty versus on-campus faculty in the

same vain as administrators balance the number of tenure, tenure-track, and non-tenure faculty

positions to meet the institution’s mission. The faculty mix will only be one element in the HR

analysis for the use of telecommuting faculty. This paper only addressed the conceptual element

of telecommuting as an alternative work schedule for faculty. Other issues involving

compensation and benefits are just as important to a comprehensive adoption of this alternative

work schedule.

References

AACSB member schools are increasing online program offerings. (2010, April/May).

Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/enewsline/archives/2010/vol9-issue3-

datadirect.pdf December 22, 2011.

ACBSP Standards and Criteria for demonstrating excellence in baccalaureate/graduate

degree schools and programs (Revision B). (2011, November). Overland Park, KS:

Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP).

Agreement between Association of College and University Faculties (APSCUF) and the

Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (State System) July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2011.

(2007). Retrieved December 14, 2011

http://www.apscuf.com/PDFs/Contracts/members.faculty.contract.0711.pdf

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United

States, 2009. Babson Study Group. Retrieved from The Sloan Consortium at

http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/freedownloads Dec 22, 2011.

66

Alavi, M. & Gallupe, R. B. (2003). Using information technology in learning: Case

studies in business and management education programs. Academy of Management

Learning and Education 2(2), 139-153

Apgar, M. (1998, May-June). The alternative workplace: Changing where and how

people work. Harvard Business Review, 121-136.

Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new

directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,

383-400. DOI: 10.1002/job.144

Browning, M. C. (2008). The virtual office: Challenges and opportunity for faculty.

ABBS eJournal, 4(1), 12-19.

Davidow, W. H. & Malone, M. S. (1992). The Virtual Corporation. New York:

HarperCollins

Dew, J. (2010, March-April). Global, mobile, virtual, and social: The college campus of

tomorrow. The Futurist, 46-50.

Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation (Revised),

(2011, January 31). Tampa, FL: AACSB International - The Association to Advance Collegiate

Schools of Business. Retrieved December 14, 2011 from

http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards-2011-revisions-jan2011.pdf

Epper, R. M., & Garn, M. (2004). Virtual universities real possibilities. EDUCAUSE

Review, 28-39.

Faculty Handbook (2011). Northwestern Oklahoma State University. Retrieved

December 14, 2011,

http://nwosu.publishpath.com/Websites/NWOSU/images/2011%20faculty%20handbook.pdf

67

Gibson, J. W., Blackwell, C. W., Dominicis, P., & Demerath, N. (2002). Telecommuting

in the 21st century: Benefits, issues, and a leadership model which will work. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 8(4), 75-86.

Hemmila, D. (2011, January 10). Proposed budget cuts $1.4B from higher education. UC

Newsroom. Retrieved September 23, 2011 from

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/24764

Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2011). Projections of education statistics to 2020 (39th

ed.). US Department of Education, IES National College for Education Statistics, NCES 2011-

026. Retrieved October 18, 2011 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011.2011026.pdf

Jackson, P. (2011, March 10). Tom Corbett’s proposed higher-education cuts draw

protests. The Huffington Post [Politics]. Retrieved September 23, 2011 from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/tom-corbetts-proposed-hg_n_834342.html

Kutztown University announces 2011-2012 budget reductions (2011, July 28). Budget

information for the KU campus community [Press Releases]. Retrieved September 23, 2011

from http://www.kutztown.edu/budget/releases.aspx

Martinez-Sanchez, A., Perez-Perez, M., de-Luis-Carnicer, R., & Vela-Jimenez, M. J.

(2007). Telework, human resource flexibility and firm performance. New Technology, Work and

Employment 22(3), 208-223.

Meinert, D. (2011, June). Make telecommuting payoff. HRMagazine, 56(6), 33-37.

Ng, C. F. (2006, September). Academic telecommuting in open and distance education

universities: Issues, challenges, and opportunities. International Review of Research in Open and

Distance Learning, 7(2), 1-16. ISSN: 1492-3831.

Oblinger, D. (2003, July-August). Boomers, Gen-Xers, & Millenials: Understanding the

new students. Educause Review, 38(4), 37-40, 42-47.

68

Ozias, A. (2011, June). Telework 2011: A WorldatWork special report. Retrieved from

http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=53034 December 15, 2011.

Planning enhances the potential of telecommuting success. (2008, April). HRfocus

[Special Report on Telecommuting].

Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the first generation of

digital natives. New York: Basic Books.

Pleka, B. (2007). Educating the Net Generation: How to engage students in the 21st

century (2nd

ed.). Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica Press

Robinson, S., & Ritzko, J. (2009). Podcasts in education: What, why, and how?

Proceedings of the Academy of Educational Leadership, 14(1), 38-43. New Orleans, Allied

Academies. Retrieved July 19, 2009 from

http://www.alliedacademies.org/Public/Procedings/Proceddings24/AEL

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tapscott, D., & Williams A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes

everything (Expanded ed.). New York: Portfolio.

Twigg, C. A. (1994, July-August). The Changing Definition of Learning. Educom Review

29(4). Available http://net.educause.edu/apps/er/review/reviewArticles/29422.html

What are some of the current best practices in telecommuting? (2011, July). HRfocus

[Special Report: Telecommuting].

White, J. (2011, March 3). Wisconsin budget will make higher education less accessible.

Retrieved September 23, 2011 from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/wise-

m03.shtml