Abstract:

This study focuses on the effects of an incentive-based budgeting system on faculty and administrators' frames used during budgetary decision-making at a public higher education institution in the US. More specifically, this study explored the organizational frames (Bolman and Deal, 2003) used by faculty and administrators when they are involved in budgetary issues as well as how these frames have changed overtime. To explain this, a qualitative single institution case study was employed. The data used in the study came from two different sources: Individual interviews with faculty and administrators and institutional documents. The interviews with faculty and administrators took place over a fifteen-year period, corresponding with the implementation and ongoing use of responsibility center management as a budgeting method (RCM). These interviews were used to illustrate the organizational frames used by faculty and administrators at a public doctoral I institution in the Mid-West. The findings suggest that faculty and administrators use multiple frames in decision-making. When involved with budgetary issues, they both predominantly use structural framework, followed by political framework. In general, there has been a change towards a more rational decision-making process. This is made evident by the presence of structural frame being as strong. On the other hand, the use of both the human resource frame and of the symbolic frame in the institution is described as eroding. Additionally, there is a difference between the faculty and the administrators in the frames they most use.

Keywords: