Over the past few weeks and months, there have been a number of campuses struggling with how to deal with their fraternities and Greek Life culture. Fraternities and sororities can provide some compelling benefits, but many of us in higher education are starting to ask if the costs now outweigh the benefits. The culture of Greek Life has become so strong and ideological that reform efforts often fail and reformers from presidents to vice presidents of student affairs in increasing numbers have lost their jobs for even suggesting the need for reform. To me, Greek Life has devolved into a subculture at odds with the broader purpose of higher education turning supporters into zealots for their cause. In today’s post, I want to share the conclusion from my 2011 Journal of Higher Education article, Witch-hunting at Crucible University. Although about a very different case, I think the conclusion speaks to my concerns regarding the ongoing problems with Greek Life and shows the double-edged sword of organizational culture.
The events at Crucible University illuminate the potential danger to an organization of using ideology as a political weapon. Although institutional vision can liberate and motivate campus communities, such vision can also paradoxically blind groups. Members of competing subcultures can turn into zealots, willing to justify the use of any means necessary to support their ideological stance.
This fundamentalism creates participants who are dogmatic and unable to make decisions which are rational and for the good of both individuals as well as the entire organization. Instead, the blinders of zealotry move each competing group further away from the other on the ideological spectrum, weakening the organization in the process.
As a result, both leaders and followers become engulfed in the larger purpose of the cause (Burns, 1978). Groups will silence any stance that is viewed as incongruent; each side is willing to sacrifice people for the good of the cause. In the end, proponents will violate their own norms that are established early on by the movement including openness, discussion, debate, and inclusion.
This case raises important questions and implications about the need for expanding the discussion of organizational culture in higher education. As a working framework for understanding colleges and universities, culture provides insights into the how and why of institutional behavior. Yet a large segment of the literature focuses on the coalescing and positive influence of culture within institutions. Detrimental and divisive components of organizational culture and change exist, as evidenced by the case of Crucible. A need persists for additional in-depth studies that explore interactions between subcultures, particularly negative and conflicting ones.
The organizational witch hunt at Crucible University also demonstrates how groups excise members who are perceived by powerful subcultures as antithetical to the institution’s missions, goals, and values. This conflict provides a unique window into organizational pathology in higher education and how dysfunctional interactions can come to dominant an institution that is not currently explored in the literature.
An additional strength of such an approach recognizes that culture is not bound solely within institutional boundaries—at Crucible, the media played an integral role in shaping public opinion regarding the case. Recognizing the power of ideology, organizational pathology, and conflict to shape institutional behavior has the potential to expand the application of organizational culture as a theoretical framework for understanding the inner workings of colleges and universities.
