Conflicts, commitments, and cliques in the university: Moral seduction as a threat to trustee independence

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 354-386

  Bastedo, Michael N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Governance; Politics; Postsecondary education; Qualitative research

Indexed keywords

EID: 67949122912     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0002831208329439     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (1998). AGB statement on institutional governance. Washington, DC: Author.
3. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2001). Governing in the public interest: External influences on colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Author.
4. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2003). Merit screening of citizens for gubernatorial appointment to public college and university trusteeship (AGB State Policy Brief No. 1). Washington, DC: Author.
5. Bastedo, M. N. (2005). The making of an activist governing board. Review of Higher Education, 28, 551-570.
6. Bastedo, M. N. (2006). Activist trustees in the public university: Reconceptualizing the public interest. In P. D. Eckel (Ed.), The shifting frontiers of academic decision making (pp. 127-141). Washington, DC: ACE/Praeger.
7. Bastedo, M. N. (2007). Governing the research university: Identifying presidential management strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers, Dublin, Ireland, August 30-September 2, 2007.
8. Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Convergent institutional logics in public higher education: State policymaking and governing board activism. Review of Higher Education, 32, 209-234.
9. Berdahl, R. O. (1971). Statewide coordination of higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
10. Bowen, W. G. (1994). Inside the boardroom. New York: Wiley.
11. Brint, S. (1996). In an age of experts: The changing role of professionals in politics and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12. Cain, D. M., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. A. (2005). The dirt on coming clean: Perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. Journal of Legal Studies, 34, 1-25.
13. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1962). Role of the college and university trustee. Princeton, NJ: Author.
14. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1982). The control of the campus: A report on the governance of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15. Chait, R. P. (1995). The new activism of corporate boards and the implications for campus governance (Association of Governing Boards Occasional Paper No. 26). Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
16. Chait, R. P. (2006). When trustees blunder. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(24), B6.
17. Chugh, D., Bazerman, M. H., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. In D. A. Moore, D. M. Cain, G. Loewenstein, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Conflicts of interest: Challenges and solutions in business, law, medicine, and public policy (pp. 74-95). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18. Clark, B. R. (1956). Adult education in transition: A study in institutional insecurity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
19. Corzine, J. (2006). State of New Jersey Executive Order Number 14. Retrieved December 14, 2008, from http://www.nj.gov/infobank/circular/eojsc14.htm
20. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. New York: Prentice Hall.
21. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819).
22. Davis, G. F., & Marquis, C. (2005). Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century: Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16, 332-343.
23. de Russy, C. (1996). In defense of activist trusteeship. Trusteeship, 4(6), 6-10.
24. DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3-22). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
25. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1-40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26. Dreier, A. (2005). Sarbanes-Oxley and college accountability. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(44), B10.
27. Duderstadt, J. J. (2004). Governing the 21st century university: A view from the bridge. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Competing conceptions of academic governance: Negotiating the perfect storm (pp. 137-157). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28. Duryea, E. D. (2000). The academic corporation: A history of college and university governing boards. New York: Falmer.
29. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Freidson, E. (1988). Professional powers: A study of the institutionalization of formal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31. Gilbert, D. (2006). Stumbling on happiness. New York: Knopf.
32. Giroux, H. A. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education: The university as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 425-463.
33. Hall, P. D. (1999). Resolving the dilemmas of democratic governance: The historical development of trusteeship in America, 1636-1996. In E. C. Lagemann (Ed.), Philanthropic foundations: New scholarship, new possibilities (pp. 3-42). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
34. Herbst, J. (1982). From crisis to crisis: American college government, 1636-1819. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35. Ingram, R. T. (1993). Exercising stewardship in times of transition. In R. T. Ingram (Ed.), Governing public colleges and universities (pp. 3-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36. Ingram, R. T. (1996). New tensions in the academic boardroom. Educational Record, 77, 49-55.
37. Johnson, N. C., & Clark, C. S. (2003). Take the gamesmanship out of appointments to public colleges' governing boards. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(39), B20.
38. Kerr, C., & Gade, M. L. (1989). The guardians: Boards of trustees of American colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
39. Kezar, A. (2006). Rethinking public higher education governing boards performance: Results of a national study of governing boards in the United States. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 968-1008.
40. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2004). Meeting today's governance challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 371-399.
41. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
42. Lazerson, M. (1997, March/April). Who owns higher education? The changing face of governance. Change, 10-15.
43. Leslie, D. W., & MacTaggart, T. (2008). The new ethics of trusteeship: How public college and university trustees can meet higher public expectations. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
44. Leslie, D. W., & Novak, R. (2003). Substance versus politics: Through the dark mirror of governance reform. Educational Policy, 17, 98-129.
45. Lincoln, Y. L., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
46. Lounsbury, M. (2008). Institutional rationality and practice variation: New directions in the institutional analysis of practice. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 33, 349-361.
47. MacTaggart, T. J., & Mingle, J. R. (2002). Pursuing the public's agenda: Trustees in partnership with state leaders. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
48. Maguire Associates. (2005). Chronicle of Higher Education survey of college and university presidents. Washington, DC: Chronicle of Higher Education.
49. Maniha, J., & Perrow, C. (1965). The reluctant organization and the aggressive environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 238-257.
50. March, J. G. (1994). Primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Free Press.
51. Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279-300.
52. McLaughlin, J. B., & Riesman, D. (1986). The shady side of sunshine. Teachers College Record, 87, 471-494.
53. McLendon, M. K., & Hearn, J. C. (2006). Mandated openness in public higher education: A field study of state sunshine laws and institutional governance. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 645-683.
54. Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33-43.
55. Moore, D. A., & Cain, D. M. (2007). Overconfidence and underconfidence: When and why people underestimate (and overestimate) the competition. Organizational Behavior and Human Processes, 103, 197-213.
56. Moore, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Self-interest, automaticity, and the psychology of conflict of interest. Social Justice Research, 17, 189-202.
57. Moore, D. A., Tetlock, P. E., Tanlu, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). Conflicts of interest and the case of auditor independence: Moral seduction and strategic issue cycling. Academy of Management Review, 31, 10-29.
58. Mortimer, K. P., & Sathre, C. O. (2007). The art and politics of university governance. Westport, CT: Praeger.
59. Mulligan, L. M. (2007). What's good for the goose is not good for the gander: State, Sarbanes-Oxley-style, nonprofit reforms. Michigan Law Review, 105, 1981-2009.
60. Novak, R., Leslie, D., & Hines, E. (1998). Bridging the gap between state government and public higher education. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
61. Orts, E. W. (2001). Conflict of interest on corporate boards. In M. Davis & A. Stark (Eds.), Conflict of interest in the professions (pp. 129-158). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
62. Ostrower, F. (2007). Nonprofit governance in the United States: Performance and accountability in the first nationally representative study. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
63. Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York: McGraw-Hill.
64. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1974). Organizational decision making as a political process: The case of a university budget. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 135-151.
65. Pusser, B., Slaughter, S., & Thomas, S. L. (2006). Playing the board game: An empirical analysis of university trustee and corporate board interlocks. Journal ofHigher Education, 77, 747-775.
66. Rauh, M. A. (1969). The trusteeship of colleges and universities. New York: McGraw-Hill.
67. Schwartz, M., & Akins, L. (2004). Policies, practices, and composition of governing boards of public colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
68. Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
69. Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study of politics and organization. Berkeley: University of California Press.
70. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley.
71. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
72. Smith, D. H. (1995). Entrusted: The moral responsibilities of trusteeship. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
73. Stark, A. (2000). Conflict of interest in American public life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
74. Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 27-44.
75. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1991). The conditions of fruitfulness of theorizing about mechanisms in social science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 21, 367-388.
76. Strauss A., & Corbin, J. M. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
77. Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 633-642.
78. Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74-83.
79. Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 331-376.
80. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
81. Whitehead, J. S. (1973). The separation of college and state: Columbia, Dartmouth, Harvard, and Yale, 1776-1876. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
82. Whitehead, J. S., & Herbst, J. (1986). How to think about the Dartmouth College case. History of Education Quarterly, 26, 333-349.