CHARACTERIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS BASED ON

THE ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS OF PEREZ LOPEZ

Luz Yolanda Sandoval Estupiñan, PhD.

Research Professor, Doctorate in Education, Universidad de La Sabana
luz.sandoval@unisabana.edu.co

MA. María Amalia Flórez Huertas

Research Professor, Master of Arts in Leadership and Management of Educational
Institutions, Universidad de La Sabana
mariaflhu@unisabana.edu.co

MA. Lina Paola Gómez Martínez

Master of Arts in Leadership and Management of Educational Institutions, Universidad de La
Sabana
linagoma@unisabana.edu.co

Abstract. This work accounts for the application of the organizational models proposed by
Pérez López (1993) - mechanistic, psychosocial and anthropological- to the reality of higher
educational institutions as a result of a dissertation (Flórez, Gómez & Sandoval, 2015).
Similarly, it relates and deepens concepts such as organization & institutions, educational
institutions, higher educational institutions & organizational models, which lead to an original
proposal of characterization of the university based on the organizational models stated. The
distinctive features of each model in higher educational institutions are made explicit through
a matrix that has been validated with the judgement of experts. The characterization is the
first step for the design of an instrument that may allow higher educational institutions to
identify the organizational model they feature and devise an action plan to direct their
management towards an anthropological model which favours recovery of institutionalization
and contribute to social reconfiguration.

Key words: organizational models, higher educational institutions, higher education,

university management.

1. Introduction

Managers of higher educational institutions in Colombia and most countries, require criteria
and tools to assess and improve the way they manage and lead. The categorization proposed
by Pérez López in the late twentieth century becomes useful for the institutions to understand
and reflect on the assumptions on which their management action is based. It examines and
assesses where the weight of motivations, actions, and decisions is when formulating and
implementing the purpose, the structure, functioning, and when establishing which models -
mechanistic, psychosocial and anthropological- prevail in the managerial and administrative
work of educational institutions.

Provided that managers of universities discover the rational that drives their actions and
deepen on what they are aiming at and neglecting, they may make improvements in the ways
of leading and managing to recover institutionalization and make changes that favour
humanization and social consistency. The contribution that rises as a result of research
exercise, we assert may support reflection in the attainment of such purpose. In this paper, we
intend to summarize the justification of the problem, the theoretical foundations and the
methodological design that allowed us to identify some of the distinctive features of the
models - mechanistic, psychosocial, and anthropological- described in a matrix.

2. Justification of the problem

Having examined applications of the organizational models made by the Perezlopian

community such as: Vélaz (1996), Chinchilla (2006), Fontrodona, Guillén & Rodríguez
(1998), Ferreiro & Alcázar (2002), Chinchilla, Poelmans, & León (2004), Alcázar (2005),
Rodríguez & Osorio (2005), Chinchilla N., Poelmans, García-Lombardía & López-Jurado
(2005), López-Jurado & Gratacós (2013), Idrovo Carlier (2006), Idrovo Carlier & Hernáez
García (2010), Sandoval (2008), García (2008), Martínez (2012), Esquivias (2014); and
having consulted the research groups of Perezlopian academic communities in Spain and
Latin America, it was found that a contribution of this kind had not been made locally or
internationally to characterize the distinctive features of the -mechanistic, psychosocial and
anthropological- models, particularly in higher educational institutions.

Universities are more focused on organizational than on institutional interests.

Legitimatization is taking place through a procedural and results principle, not through
institutionalization. As stated by González (2010), when entering the competitive market
dynamics, universities are forced to conceive their activity as the production of goods which
are subject of social demand. Universities are aiming at educating the professionals that
society demands, but not necessarily, does it form professionals in an integral way with
intellectual and moral knowledge that is consistent with the construction of social fabric
(Niklander R, 2014, p. 65). The university is subject of compliance with the requirements of
the state and the market, which compromise its institutional and social reality (Barrio M.,
2005, p. 1).

Although as indicated by OECD-WORLD BANK (2012), factors of an organizational and

technical kind constitute the critical path to achieve the goals of higher education, they do not
configure the essence of its work. Aspects such as globalization, internationalization,
expansion, privatization, financing, access and coverage, equity and attention to the cultural
diversity as well as the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), the
government, universities, governance, and university governance, together with evaluation
and accreditation processes -as quality-assurance mechanisms-, are the main issues that
universities are facing (Santuario, 2014) nowadays. Emphasis is being placed on the structure
and functioning without proper consonance with the purpose.

Reflecting and appropriating the implication of institutionalization and knowing the

organizational models applied to the university, might help it draw findings and realise how to
develop and grow, based on visions that have more correspondence with the deep knowledge
of education and the person without disregarding the essence. As the anthropological model
gathers contributions and overcomes limitations of the psychosocial and mechanistic models,
it demands, from human organizations, a comprehensive view at how to lead and manage a
proper coordination between the context and the purpose. Within the short-term purposes and
the ultimate goal of education, it makes a call to retrieve the focus and better respond to what
institutions have been entitled for, given their nature and purpose.
 3. Theoretical foundations

The concepts that we attempt to synthesise below are the foundation of the “characterization”
of the university based on the organizational models” and such reflection leads us to infer on
the implications of the way of leading and managing, which is indicated in the matrix.

3.1 Organization and the institution

Institution differs from organization; these concepts configure a duality, two aspects of the
same reality that claim one another; the institution is the purpose while the organization is the
means, the institutional collects the organizational and organizes it to the purpose. The
institution itself contains the characteristic of the organization, that is, what regards its
structure and functioning; nevertheless, it does not get exhausted within its procedural
dimension, instead, it reveals predominant aspects that contribute to perfecting the person and
the society. An institution that emphasises on the organizational, that is, merely guides its
actions by technical rationality, and neglects the ethos; de-institutionalises. What
institutionalization allows is the rational behaviour of human beings acting within
organizations founded on certain principles, values, and an ultimate goal.

What is common to all human organizations is procedural, and this is what homogenises; the
distinctive is institutional, understood as a set of patterned behaviours -shared by a
community- that are carried out through standards (ethics) and the habit (culture), two
dimensions of ethos (Esquivias, 2014, p. 15), -personal way of being- (Altarejos, Ibañez,
Jordán, & Jover, 1998, p. 98), which start configurating by experiencing principles and some
shared values. What institutionalises within behaviour is the relationship between alter and
ego and vice versa. Then, it is such reciprocity which turns key to the institutionalized
behaviour (Esquivias, 2014, p. 30).

Since the institution owns a normative-cultural configuration, it allows behaviour to be likely

to become institutionalised when it presents a stable guidance, foreseeable and approved
(Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002). Deinstitutionalisation results from dissipation,
deterioration, alteration, and deviation of the institutional practices (Oliver, 1992) and
identity. Institutionalization is a structured, stable, socially integrated stable model, distant
from activities: unstable, loosely organized or technically-narrowed (Bloland, 2001, p. 238).

This purpose of recovering institutionalization emerges in response to the characteristics of

the current social problems (Polo L. , 2006), the social crisis revealed in the social discomfort
–expressed in cultural and psychological terms- (Donati P. , 2015, p. 310), the crisis of the
modern man, which is evinced in individualism dehumanization, the rupture of relations, the
increase of instrumental rationality, and the deterioration of the social fabric. The
anthropological model places stress on relationality, on reciprocity between the alter and the
ego; that is why, “besides being a social configurator, it is the ideal organizational model and
the one that best operativises the reality of the educational institutions” (Sandoval E, 2008, p.
203).

3.2 Educational institution & university

Institutions as pointed out by Sandoval (2008), share their human organizational character as
well as their common and generic ultimate goal, though each has their own identity, which is
granted by the specific purpose. Thus, the author has entitled her work as Educational
institution and enterprise, two differing human organizations. An enterprise holds its own
specific purpose “production and distribution of material wealth, goods, and services referred
to conditions, material resources for subsistence and welfare, and the provision of jobs (p.
175). The specific purpose of educational institutions is “to educate or form integral persons
through intentional and formal teaching” (p. 175). Based on such specific purpose, each
achieves a generic and common goal: “Human and society perfectioning” (p. 175). Likewise,
the educational institution holds a specific purpose that defines its identity. The specific
purpose of a higher educational institution differs from a school in spite of sharing a common
educational purpose: the formation of the person (Naval & Altarejos, 2007) and the support of
human growth in all dimensions (Polo L, 2006). Hence, the commonality amongst them is
tempered by differences, which have an implication in the way of leading and managing.

Although in some regions and countries, institutions at a higher education level are identified
as University Institutions and Technical Schools of universities, for the purpose of this work,
the University Institution connotes the university as an institution. The identity of the
university is given for its specific purpose and main functions that are specified based on the
study of authors such as Polo (1970), Ponz Piedrafita (1996), Medina Rubio (1996), Donati
(2006), García Garrido (2009), Sandoval, Rodríguez S. & Ecima (2010), Alvira (2013),
Falgueras Salinas (2014), and Niklander (2014) from whom we take the thought of
Mackyntre, amongst others, and which are shown in the matrix.

3.3 Organizational models

Organizational models result from a categorization of the organizational theories present in

the twentieth century as generated by Pérez López (1993). Following the author, it is
important to note that the representation of the organization through these models should be
viewed very prudently as some aspects of the reality of organizations may be left out of the
study. Accordingly, such models establish a way to simplify its analysis. The understanding
of the mechanistic, psychosocial, and anthropological models was nurtured by the study of
applications of the cited authors, and in particular the statements of Polo, Polo Barrena &
Llano (1997), Polo (2006), Frontodona, Guillén & Rodríguez (1998), Rodríguez S. & Osorio
(2005), Donati (2006) and Sandoval (2008). Human actions and decisions that are made in the
universities may connote predominant features of these models and the evaluation of the
organization.

3.3.1 Mechanistic model

The mechanistic model gathers the main organizational theories present in the first half of the
twentieth century, and is characterized by the organization as a machine that requires some
functions and processes that are more focused on the formal organization, and governed by
extrinsic motivations and downward communication. The person is treated as an object of
production and a generator of expected results. The purpose of the organization is “an
economic benefit, that is, it focuses on the production of goods and services that translate into
monetary returns for the organization; consequently, bigger production at minimum
consumption is expected” (Pérez López J. A., 1993, p. 23). On the other hand, the
organization grants a predominant significance to the effectiveness of the productive
operation, through which, the organizational perfecting is given as indicators of objective
fulfilment that measure the productivity and profitability as unique, important economic
values to achieve and maintain. This is how; the ethical approach of the mechanistic model is
reduced to “pragmatic ethics merely looking at results” (Rodríguez S. & Osorio, 2005, p. 262)
with a utilitarian, calculated, and unilateral stance. The organizational value is the
instrumental rationality where “everything is interpreted as key to the means or instrument for
the achievement of results” (p. 262).

3.3.2 Psychosocial model

The psychological model gathers the existing theories after 1940; it is characterized by
incorporating the contributions of the mechanistic model while going further, adding new
elements. The organization is conceived as a social organization that integrates informal
organization and upward communication. The person happens to be regarded as a subject-
individual, with intrinsic motivations that are part of such social set called organization. It
includes the social benefit in the purpose, involves expressive rationality in the decisions, its
processes are participatory and negotiating. The ethical approach in this model is based on
social justice and compliance with the rules of coexistence as an intermediate stance. “It is not
surprising that in such situations, managers believe that ethics correponds to drafting a code
of conduct for the company, in which the moral behaviour of people in the organization is
described” (p. 266).

3.3.3 Anthropological model

The anthropological, institutional, or humanistic model, is the current trend in the late
twentieth century and in the early twenty-first century; it integrates the contribution of the
theories present in the mechanistic and psychosocial model; besides the what (of the
mechanistic) and the how (of the psychosocial), it adds the what for, making sense of the
organization’s work and retrieving the person as the core. Pérez López (1993) states “the
characteristic of an institution is the explicit consideration of values, with which it tries to
identify people by perfecting the reasons of their actions and educating them in such
direction” (p. 28). This model “recognizes that people are respected for being people” (p.
106); therefore, it transforms from conceiving the employee as a subject with extrinsic
(material) and extrinsic (cognitive) motivations, to recognizing him as a person with
transcending motivations (affective).

The aim or purpose of the institution is “to give meaning to every human action that it
coordinates” (p. 28) through the service -understood as openness and personal donation,
meeting the needs of others-. The organizational value is the unit that is the degree of
identification of its members with the values, principles, objectives, and institutional goals; it
integrates the value of effectiveness (mechanistic) and the value of attraction (psychosocial),
adding the value of consistency (anthropological). The ethical approach in the anthropological
model “is naturally present as it is (Ethics) precisely, that integrates within itself both
purposes, the personal and the organizational, and makes the harmonization of both claims
plausible” (Rodríguez S. & Osorio, 2005, p. 278). Founded on the relational theory of Donati
(2006), we have inferred that the characteristic of communication in this approach is the
relationality amongst individuals, communities, and networks –the directive action of the
mechanistic corresponds to the executive profile, the psychosocial to a strategic profile, and
the anthropological to a leading profile. (Pérez López J. A., 1993, p. 135 - 139).

4. Methodological design

Descriptive research allowed stipulating the characterization of the university -based on the
organizational approaches of Pérez López (1993)- in a matrix, which requires 4 units of
analysis with the corresponding variables (10), dimensions (3), categories and descriptors
(30), selected as the most representative of each of the concepts. Validation was performed by
means of the valuation technique of expert judgement based on the instrument of Martínez
Miguélez (1989) to evaluate theories, from which 12 criteria were taken and adjusted to the
context of the investigation. The validation was carried out by five national and international
experts –vice chancellors and university rectors-. The scoring scale, result of the simple
average of all the judgements received, was 10/12; thus, the proposal was accepted in
accordance with the expected ranges of acceptance at the maximum level: high.

5. Characterization proposal of the university based on the organizational models of

Pérez López

The characterization proposal of the university based on the organizational models of Pérez
López, aforementioned in summary, is the result of the integration and the conceptual relation
outlined. In the first column, the matrix contains 4 units of analysis, selected as representative
of the organizational approaches; in the second column, it specifies the variables or attributes
which may adopt different values or categories for each of the models. In the third column are
the dimensions that help delimit the scope of the variable and achieve its easy understanding.
In the fourth column appears the category, which accounts for the attributes or specifications
of the variable that are exclusive and that help operate the unit of analysis in each of the
models. In the fifth column are the descriptors that are a reference to illustrate the
understanding of the category associated to each variable, and that are configured as an input
for the formulation of indicators, which could be expanded in the design phase of the
instrument. By colour coding, we have represented how each of the organizational models
integrates the developments of the former; this way, for each unit of analysis and variable
descriptor there is a trait that identifies the anthropological model (green), first level, the
psychosocial model (blue), second level, and the mechanistic (yellow), third level; and so
forth for each unit of analysis. Provided that we compare the descriptors with what is
happening at the university, the subject of our interest, we might approximate the
identification of the predominant organizational model.
 6. Conclusion

The matrix proposed might be the input for the design of an instrument that allows
universities to identify the gaps between what is experienced and what is required to govern
educational institutions within an anthropological approach, leading them to humanize
education and retrieve institutionalization. In other research instances, it may be feasible to
perform the same exercise for primary and secondary institutions.

Bibliography
Alcázar García, M. (2005). Introducción al Octógono. Una teoría de empresa centrada en el
conocimiento y en el querer de las personas. Navarra: Servicio de Publicaciones de la
Universidad de Navarra, S. A. .

Altarejos, F., Ibañez, J., Jordán, J., & Jover, G. (1998). El Ethos Docente: Una propuesta
deontológica. Cap. 4. En Ética docente. Barcelona: Editorial Ariel.

Alvira, R. (23 de Abril de 2013). Repensar la universidad para el s.XXI. Puebla, México.

Barrio M., J. M. (2005). Educar en un un contexto deseducativo: desafío actual de la

educación en Europa. Educación y Educadores, 8, 161-171.

Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization. Institutionalized individualism

and its social and political consequences. Londres: Sage.

Bloland, H. (2001). Creating the Council for Higher Education Acreditation (CHEA).
Arizona: Series on Higher Education.

Chinchilla, M. N., Poelmans, S., & León, C. &. (2004). Guía de buenas prácticas de la
empresa flexible. Hacia la conciliación de la vida laboral, familiar y personal. (Vol.
1). (I. B. School, C. d. Madrid, & U. Europea, Edits.) Madrid: Universidad de
Navarra.

Chinchilla, N. (2006). Ser una empresa familiarmente responsable ¿Lujo o necesidad?

Madrid: Pearson Prentice Hal.

Chinchilla, N., Poelmans, S., García-Lombardía, P., & López-Jurado, M. (Marzo de 2005).
Políticas de RR-HH orientadas a la conciliación vida profesional-vida familiar y su
relación con el desempeño. Obtenido de IESEinsight:
http://www.ieseinsight.com/fichaMaterial.aspx?pk=1657&idi=1&origen=1&ar=17

Donati, P. (2006). Repensar la sociedad. Madrid: Ediciones Internacionales Universitarias.

Donati, P. (2015). El reto educativo: análisis y propuestas. Educación y Educadores, 18(2),

307-329.

Esquivias, J. (2014). Acerca del Ethos profesional del directivo Universitario. Madrid:
EUNSA.

Falgueras Salinas, I. (2014). Los problemas del método en la razón pura. Studia Poliana(16),
157-195. doi:1139-6660

Ferreiro, P., & Alcazar, M. (2002). Gobierno de Personas en la Empresa. Barcelona: Ariel.

Flórez Huertas, M. A., Gómez M., L.P. & Sandoval E., L. Y., (2015). Caracterización de la
Institución Universitaria desde los Enfoques Organizacionales propuestos por Pérez
López. Tesis de Maestría. Meritoria. Chía, Cundinamarca, Colombia.
Frontodona, J., Guillén, J., & Rodríguez, A. (1998). La Ética que Necesita la Empresa.
Madrid: Unión Editorial.

García Garrido, J. L. (2009). Futuro de la universidad o universidad del futuro. Revista

Fuentes, 9-25.

García, M. (2008). Estado de la relación Trabajo/Familia en el Perú a tres niveles: directivo,

organizativo y de toma de decisiones. Reflexión a partir de una Teoría Antropológica
de la Organización y de la Dirección. Tesis Doctoral. Piura, Perú.

González, A. M. (1 de Diciembre de 2010). La identidad de la Institución Universitaria. (A.

S.A., Ed.) Recuperado el 21 de Febrero de 2015, de
http://www.aceprensa.com/articles/la-identidad-de-la-institucion-universitaria/

Idrovo Carlier, S. M. (2006). Las políticas de conciliación trabajo-familia en las empresas

colombianas. Colombia Estudios Gerenciales, 22(100), 49-71.

Idrovo Carlier, S. M., & Hernáez Garcia, M. (2010). Armonizando trabajo y familia en
Bogotá-Colombia: la conexión doméstica. Oikos, 14(29), 65-90.

López-Jurado, M., & Gratacós, G. (2013). Elegir enseñar: propuesta del modelo
antropológico de la motivación de Pérez López López aplicada al ámbito de la
educación en Revista de Estudios de Educación. Estudios sobre educación, 125-147.

Martínez Miguélez, M. (1989). Comportamiento humano: nuevos métodos de investigación.

México: Trillas S.A.

Martínez, M. (2012). Hacía un enfoque antropológico de la universidad salvadoreña. Tesís

doctoral. Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra.

Medina Rubio, R. (1996). Los Fines de la Universidad. En V. García Hoz, Tratado de

educación personalizada. La educación personalizada en la universidad. (págs. 131 -
154). Madrid: Rialp.

Naval, C., & Altarejos, F. (2007). Filosofía de la Educación (2a. ed.). Pamplona: EUNSA.

Niklander R., G. (2014). Tesis Doctoral: El Sistema de Educación Superior Chileno. Una
revisión desde la perspectiva de MacIntyre, Newman y Ortega y Gasset. Pamplona,
España.

OCDE/BANCO MUNDIAL. (2012). La Educación Superior en Colombia. Washington D.C.:

OCDE el Banco Internacional de Reconstrucción y Fomento / el Banco Mundial.

Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 563-588.

Pérez López, J. A. (1993). Fundamentos de la dirección de empresas. Madrid: Rialp.

Polo, L. (1970). La crisis de la universidad. En VV.AA, Univsersidad en crisis (págs. 5 - 26).

Sevilla: Prensa Española S.A.
Polo, L. (2006). Ayudar a crecer: cuestiones filosóficas de la educación. Pamplona: Eunsa.

Polo, L., Polo Barrena, L., & Llano, C. (1997). Antrolopología de la Acción Directiva.
Madrid: Unión Editorial S.A.

Ponz Piedrafita, F. (1996). Espíritu universitario. En V. García Hoz, Tratado de la educación

personalizada - La educación personalizada en la universidad (págs. 81- 130).
Madrid: Rialp.

Rodríguez S., A., & Osorio, A. (2005). La incidencia de la Laborem Exercens en la teoría de
la organización. (U. C. Concepción, Ed.) Revista de Filosofía, 4(1), 259-282.

Sandoval E., L. (2008). Institución Educativa y Empresa Dos Organizaciones Humanas

Distintas. Chía: EUNSA.

Sandoval, L. Y., Rodríguez Sedano, A., & Ecima, I. (2010). Ethical qualities of professional
development of the educator a humanistic perspective needed to manage a new way to
see the quality of education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. , 2589-2593.

Santuario, A. A. (2 de Julio de 2014). III Encuentro de Gestión Universitaria del SUE.

Obtenido de http://www.gerencia.unal.edu.co/EGU/docs/Presentacion_III_EGU-
Armando_Alcantara-02Jul2014.pdf.

Vélaz, J. I. (1996). Motivos y Motivación en la Empresa. Madrid: Díaz de Santos.