Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

Successful Applications of the Balanced

Scorecard in Higher Education


ABSTRACT. Are there management

tools that professionals use in business B usiness and educational institu-
tions are experiencing challenges
such as increased competition, global-
The BSC is an integrated results-
oriented set of key-performance mea-
sures, including financial and nonfi-
that academics have used successfully
ization, emerging technology, resource nancial measures, which comprise
in higher education? The answer to that constraints, and the consequences of current performance and drivers of
question is yes, and the balanced score- unethical behavior. Leaders in business future performance. The BSC should
card (BSC) is one such tool. The author and education are more often recogniz- be a component of a strategic man-
ing the importance of being customer agement system that links the entity’s
reports on measures that administrators
focused by identifying and separating mission, core values, and vision for the
chose for the BSCs of 2 educational value-added and nonvalue-added activi- future with strategies, targets, and ini-
institutions whose successes have been ties by and in collecting information for tiatives that are explicitly designed to
recognized through the Malcolm Bald- performance evaluation and continuous inform and motivate continuous efforts
improvement. toward improvement (Hoffecker, 1994;
rige National Quality Award.
Leaders of educational institutions Kaplan & Norton, 1992a, 1992b, 1993,
must answer these important questions: 1996a, 1996b; Maisel, 1992; Newing,
Keywords: balanced scorecard, key Are schools meeting their missions? Are 1994, 1995). The identification, com-
performance measures, Malcolm Bald- schools offering educational value to munication, and evaluation of these
their students? Can schools improve their key-performance indicators play an
rige National Quality Award
processes and create additional value important role in strategic planning, in
while containing or reducing costs? Are translating strategy into action, and in
Copyright © 2009 Heldref Publications schools effectively and efficiently using evaluating performance.
scarce resources such as intellectual cap- The concept of the BSC was first intro-
ital, state appropriations, other revenue duced by Kaplan and Norton (1992b) in
sources, people, and time? their widely cited article, “The Bal-
Are there management tools used in anced Scorecard: Measures that Drive
business that may be useful in higher Performance,” which appeared in the
education? The answer to this ques- Harvard Business Review. The wide-
tion is yes, and the balanced scorecard spread adoption and use of the BSC in
(BSC) is one such tool. Although pub- business is well documented.
lished reports of successful applications The basic premise of the BSC is that
of BSC in higher education are limited, financial results alone cannot capture
the potential for successful application value-creating activities. Kaplan and
exists. I report successful application of Norton (1992b) suggested that organi-
BSC at two educational institutions that zations, while using financial measures,
have received the Malcolm Baldrige should develop a comprehensive set of
National Quality Award (2003). additional measures to use as leading

May/June 2009 275

indicators, or predictors, of financial per- was designed to help organizations and the students’ and stakeholders’
formance. They suggested that measures use an integrated approach to perfor- future actions (customer perspective).
should be developed that address the fol- mance management that results in (a) 3. Budgetary, financial, and market
lowing four organizational perspectives: the delivery of ever-improving value to results should include instructional and
students and stakeholders, which con- general administrative expenditures per
1. Financial perspective: “How
tributes to education quality and organi- student, tuition and fee levels, cost per
should we appear to our stakeholders?”
zational stability; (b) the improvement academic credit, resources redirected to
2. Customer perspective: “How
of overall organizational effectiveness education from other areas, and scholar-
should we appear to our customers?”
and capabilities; and (c) organizational ship growth (financial perspective).
3. Internal business processes per-
and personal learning. The criteria place 4. Faculty and staff results should
spective: “What processes must we heavy emphasis on the development of include innovation and suggestion rates,
excel at?” a comprehensive measurement system courses or educational programs com-
4. Learning and growth perspective: that is consistent with the BSC. pleted, learning, on-the-job performance
“How can we sustain our ability to The Malcolm Baldrige National improvements, cross-training rates, col-
change and improve?” Quality Award Program (2003) identi- laboration and teamwork, knowledge
All of the measures in the four fies 11 core values and concepts that and skill sharing across work functions,
perspectives must be aligned with the comprise the philosophical foundations units, and locations, employee well-
organization’s vision and strategic objec- of performance excellence in education being, satisfaction, and dissatisfaction
tives, enabling managers to monitor and including visionary leadership; learn- (learning and growth perspective).
adjust strategy implementation (Kaplan ing-centered education; organizational 5. Organizational effectiveness
& Norton, 1996b). The BSC provides a and personal learning; valuing faculty, results, including key internal opera-
way of organizing and presenting large staff, and partners; agility; focusing on tional-performance measures, should
amounts of complex, interrelated data to the future; managing for innovation; include the following: the capacity to
provide an overview of the organization managing by fact; social responsibility; improve student performance and stu-
and foster effective and efficient deci- focusing on results and creating value; dent development, the educational cli-
sion making and continuous improve- and having a systems perspective. mate, indicators of responsiveness to
ment. Developing the BSC requires the These Malcolm Baldrige National student or stakeholder needs, supplier
identification of several key components Quality Award Program (2003) core and partner performance, key measures
of operations and financial performance, values and concepts are embodied in or indicators of accomplishment of
establishing goals for these components, seven categories that include leader- organizational strategy, and action plans
and then selecting measures to track ship; strategic planning; a student, (internal business process perspective).
progress toward these goals. stakeholder, and market focus; measure- 6. Governance and social responsi-
ment, analysis, and knowledge manage- bility results should include internal and
ment; faculty and staff focus; process external fiscal accountability, measures
BSC and Malcolm Baldrige
management; and organizational per- or indicators of ethical behavior and of
National Quality Award Program
formance results. stakeholder trust in the governance of
An adapted form of the BSC is a com- Each of these seven categories con- the organization, regulatory and legal
ponent of the Malcolm Baldrige National tains a set of requirements that an orga- compliance, and organizational citizen-
Quality Award Program (2003). The pro- nization should address in its process ship (governance and social responsibil-
gram is the vehicle of implementation for of self-assessment. For example, in the ity perspective).
the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality organizational performance results cat-
Improvement Act (1987). The primary egory, the organization must specify the A comprehensive set of leading and
objective of the program is to help U.S. following results that the approaches of lagging measures or indicators tied to
businesses improve their competitive- the first six categories yield: student, stakeholder, or organization-
ness in the global market by identifying al performance requirements should
role-model organizations, recognizing 1. Student learning results should be be chosen and represent a clear basis
them, and disseminating their best prac- based on a variety of assessment meth- for aligning all plans, processes, mea-
tices throughout the United States. ods and reflect the organization’s over- sures, and proposed actions with the
The Malcolm Baldrige National all mission and improvement objectives organization’s goals and priorities; for
Quality Award Program, after adapt- taken together to represent a holistic monitoring actual performance; and for
ing the business criteria and establish- appraisal of student learning (customer providing a basis for improving student,
ing education criteria for performance, perspective). operational, and financial performance
awarded the first award for education. 2. Student- and stakeholder-focused (Malcolm Baldrige National Qual-
The University of Wisconsin—Stout results should involve satisfaction mea- ity Award Program, 2003). The results
was one of the first three recipients. surements about specific educational represent a BSC for the educational
The Malcolm Baldrige National Qual- program and service features, delivery, institution in which the lagging indica-
ity Award Program (2003), “Education interactions, and transactions that bear tor is student-learning results and other
Criteria for Performance Excellence,” on student development and learning results are considered leading indicators

276 Journal of Education for Business

or drivers of student learning (Karatha- UCSD reported several benefits and added until 2003), their individual mea-
nos & Karathanos, 2005). Learning can outcomes as a result of this initiative. sures differ considerably in several areas,
be tracked while monitoring progress in The paucity of reported BSC applica- reflecting the differences in their indi-
building the capabilities and acquiring tions in educational institutions, espe- vidual missions, core values, and vision.
the resources that enhance the capacity cially in the instructional functions, The University of Wisconsin—Stout
to improve student performance. does not imply a lack of applicabil- (2001) provides a distinct array of pro-
ity. There may be a lack of awareness grams leading to professional careers
Reported Adaptations and or understanding of its application as focused on the needs of society. Some
Applications of BSC part of strategic management and the unique characteristics include the fol-
need to focus on multiple measures of lowing: (a) More than half of the 27
in Higher Education
performance. Gourman (1993) and the undergraduate programs are not offered
Although the application of the BSC in Educational Rankings Annual (Hatten- at any other campus in the University
the business sector is well documented, dorf, 1996) explicitly recognized the of Wisconsin system, and several are
little research has been reported regard- limitations of any one ranking method- unique in the nation; (b) the programs
ing the adaptation or application of the ology. Rather than selecting one rank- emphasize business-relation processes
BSC in the education sector. Papenhau- ing approach, the Educational Rankings and staying current with fast-changing
sen and Einstein (2006) revealed how Annual (Hattendorf) provided separate technology and market dynamics; and
BSC could be implemented at a college rankings on the basis of four groups (c) traditional instruction is reinforced
of business. Karathanos and Karathanos of measures including (a) reputation by extensive technology laboratories
(2005) presented the detailed measures rankings derived from the opinions of and industry partnerships.
of the BSCs of the first three recipients of college and university presidents, deans, The university’s programs also
the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality department chairpersons, senior schol- include the following key student
Award (2003) in education. Karathanos ars, and others; (b) citation analysis; (c) requirements and corresponding mea-
and Karathanos stressed the importance faculty productivity, measured by the sures or indicators: (a) cutting-edge,
of clear alignment of measures with the number of publications; and (d) statisti- career-oriented programs (number of
mission, core values, and strategic goals cal rankings derived from such informa- new programs, placement success); (b)
of each organization. tion as endowment, library facilities, high-quality, active-learning educa-
Cullen, Joyce, Hassall, and Broadbent and admissions selectivity. Rankings tion (percentage of lab instruction and
(2003) proposed that BSC be used by in the media by U.S. News & World faculty contact); (c) effective student
educational institutions to reinforce the Report, Business Week, and Fortune support services (retention, academic
importance of managing—rather than also included multiple measures. success, student satisfaction); and (d)
only monitoring—performance. Suther- Thus, existing ranking approaches related employment and academic or
land (2000) reported that the Rossier consider multiple facets of educational career growth opportunities (placement
School of Education at the University programs. However, these approaches in major, graduate success, employer
of Southern California adopted BSC to do not select the various measures or satisfaction; Karathanos and Karatha-
assess its academic program and plan- organize them on the basis of an inte- nos, 2005).
ning process. Bailey, Chow, and Haddad grated system of performance drivers The Kenneth W. Monfort College
(1999) surveyed business deans about and diagnostic indicators. Moreover, of Business (2004) at Northern Colo-
potentially useful measures. Chang and the media rankings do not relate these rado’s mission is to deliver excellent
Chow (1999) reported that responses measures to each institution’s mission. undergraduate business programs that
in a survey of 69 accounting depart- The usefulness of these existing rank- prepare students for successful careers
ment leaders were generally supportive ings for guiding individual programs and responsible leadership in busi-
of BSC’s applicability and benefits to toward continuous improvement and ness. Some of its unique characteris-
accounting programs by enhancing stra- change is questionable. tics follow: (a) pursuing excellence in
tegic planning and continuous improve- The present article presents the results undergraduate-only business education,
ment efforts. of successful implementation of BSC uniquely among its regional and nation-
The National Association of Col- at the Kenneth W. Monfort College of al peers; (b) one of five undergraduate-
lege and University Business Officers Business at Northern Colorado, a 2004 only programs nationally to hold Asso-
(NACUBO) reported in 1996 that the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality ciation to Advance Collegiate Schools
University of California, San Diego’s Award recipient, and at the University of Business accreditations in business
(UCSD) senior management launched of Wisconsin—Stout, the first univer- and accounting; and (c) commitment to
a BSC planning- and performance- sity to receive the award in 2001. The a program strategy of high-touch, wide-
monitoring system for 30 institutional detailed measures comprising the BSCs tech, and professional depth to make
(but not instructional) functions using of these two institutions are presented the college of business a value leader
three primary data sources: (a) UCSD’s in the Appendix. Although the BSCs of compared with its competition.
internal financial reports; (b) NACUBO these two institutions cover all but one In addition, the programs have the
benchmarks; and (c) faculty, staff, and of the perspectives of the award (gover- following key strategic objectives and
student customer-satisfaction surveys. nance and social responsibility was not corresponding measures or indicators:

May/June 2009 277

(a) build a high-quality student popula- into operational objectives, measures, performance measures. Journal of Cost Man-
agement, 8(3), 5–17.
tion (average ACT score of new fresh- and actions in alignment with their mis- Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992a). Strategic
men and average transfer student GPA); sions and core values. Furthermore, the learning and the balanced scorecard. Strategy
(b) maintain high-quality faculty (over- process of establishing the BSC pro- and Leadership, 24, 18–25.
all percentage of faculty academically vides the opportunity for identifying Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992b). The
balanced scorecard-measures that drive perfor-
and or professionally qualified); (c) what really matters to customers and mance. Harvard Business Review, 70, 71–79.
maintain adequate financial resources stakeholders: why the institution exists, Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1993). Putting the
(available state funds and available what is important to the institution, and balanced scorecard to work. Harvard Business
Review, 71(5), 134–142.
private funds); and (d) develop mar- what the institution wants to be. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996a). Trans-
ket reputation consistent with program lating strategy into action: The balanced
excellence (college of business media NOTE scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business School
coverage; Kenneth W. Monfort College Deborah F. Beard is a professor in the Depart- Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996b). Using
of Business, 2004). ment of Accounting and Management Information the balanced scorecard as a strategic manage-
Evaluating performance by using Systems in the Donald L. Harrison College of ment system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1),
Business. Her research interests include program 75–85.
key-performance indicators and incor- assessment, experiential learning, information Karathanos, D., & Karathanos, P. (2005). Apply-
porating those evaluations into strategic security, and convergence of international finan- ing the balanced scorecard in education. Jour-
planning have served these institutions cial reporting standards and generally accepted nal of Education for Business, 80, 222–230.
accounting principles of the United States. She Kenneth W. Monfort College of Business. (2004).
well in their search for and attainment teaches cost and managerial accounting, interme- Kenneth W. Monfort College of Business 2004
of continuous improvement. Both insti- diate accounting, accounting theory, and account- Baldrige application summary. Retrieved July
tutions’ applications for the Malcolm ing principles. 30, 2006, from http://www.quality.nist.gov/
Correspondence concerning this article should PDF_files/Monfort_Application_Summary.pdf
Baldrige National Quality Award Pro- be addressed to Deborah F. Beard, Southeast Maisel, L. S. (1992). Performance measure-
gram provided extensive data relating to Missouri State University, 1 University Plaza, ment: The balanced scorecard approach.
the key performance measures used by MS5815, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701, USA. Journal of Cost Management, 6(2), 47–52.
E-mail: dfbeard@semo.edu Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Pro-
these organizations. gram. (2003). Education criteria for perfor-
mance excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: Author.
Conclusions Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Improvement
Bailey, A., Chow, C., & Haddad, K. (1999). Con- Act of 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-107, § 3711a, 101
Although being recognized in rank- tinuous improvement in business education: Stat. 724 (1987).
Insights from the for-profit sector and business National Association of College and University
ings in national media reports can Business Officers Web site. (1996). Retrieved
deans. Journal of Education for Business, 75,
be satisfying and valuable to student 165–180. July 20, 2006, from http://www.nacubo.org
recruitment, an integrated management Chang, O. H., & Chow. C. W. (1999). The bal- Newing, R. (1994). Benefits of a balanced score-
system that includes BSC should be anced scorecard: A potential tool for support- card. Accountancy, 114(1215), 52–53.
ing change and continuous improvement in Newing, R. (1995). Wake up to the balanced
considered for application in higher accounting education. Issues in Accounting scorecard. Management Accounting, London,
education. Identifying and using key Education, 1, 395–412. 73(3), 22–23.
performance measures consistent with Cullen, J., Joyce, J., Hassall, T., & Broadbent, Papenhausen, C., & Einstein, W. (2006). Imple-
M. (2003). Quality in higher education: From menting the balanced scorecard at a college
the institution’s mission and core values monitoring to management. Quality Assurance of business. Measuring Business Excellence,
and seeking continuous improvement in Education, 2, 1–5. 10(3), 15–22.
offer opportunities to create educational Gourman, J. (1993). The Gourman report: A rat- Sutherland, T. (2000, Summer). Designing and
ing of undergraduate programs in American implementing an academic scorecard. Account-
value in higher education. BSC, as a and international universities. Los Angeles: ing Education News, 11–13.
strategy-based management system, National Education Standards. University of Wisconsin-Stout. (2001). Univer-
enables not only business organizations Hattendorf, L. C. (1996). Educational rankings sity of Wisconsin-Stout 2001 Baldrige applica-
annual. Detroit, MI: Gale Research. tion summary. Retrieved January 10, 2004,
but also educational institutions to clar- Hoffecker, J. (1994). Using the balanced from http://www.quality.nist.gov/PDF_files/
ify their visions and translate strategies scorecard to develop company wide UWStout_Application_Summary.pdf

278 Journal of Education for Business

Balanced Scorecard Measures of Two Recipients of the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in Education:
University of Wisconsin—Stout and
Kenneth W. Monfort College of Business (MCB) at Northern Colorado University (UNC)

Baldrige expected measures in Measures used at University of Measures used at Kenneth W. Monfort
education criteria Wisconsin—Stout College of Business

Student learning results 1. Freshman ACT scores 1. Freshman ACT scores

(Customer-focused results) 2. Freshman retention 2. Education Testing Services field
Should be based on a variety of 3. “At risk” freshman retention achievement test in business
assessment methods and should reflect 4. Active learning 3. Student participation in marketplace
the organization’s overall mission and 5. Computer competency 4. Employer survey
improvement objectives and together 6. Skills development Program quality
should represent holistic appraisals of Leadership Student learning
student learning Problem solving 5. Parent surveys
Conflict resolution 6. Educational Benchmarking Institute’s
Communication undergraduate business exit study:
7. Diversity appreciation Abilities and skills development
8. Graduation rate Use technology
9. Student job placement Manage technology
10. Employment in major field Analyze and interpret data
11. Salaries of graduates Think critically
12. Annual income of alumni Solve problems
13. Alumni rating of program effectiveness Leadership
14. Alumni development of active Presentation
learning skills 7. Exit study
15. Alumni appreciation of diversity Academic rigor of business courses
16. Skill assessment by employers vs. nonbusiness courses
Basic skills 8. Alumni survey
Communications Ability to apply technology
Organizational or problem solving

Student- and stakeholder-focused results 1. Freshman ratings of educational 1. Student or stakeholder satisfaction
Student and stakeholder satisfaction experience with program, perception of value,
measurements about specific educa- 2. Number of transfers-in and referral
tional program and service features, 3. Numbers that would attend again 2. Alumni satisfaction
delivery, interactions, and transactions 4. Student satisfaction with campus 3. Employer satisfaction
that bear upon student development environment 4. Satisfaction with quality of faculty
and learning and the students’ and 5. Alumni satisfaction with instruction and instruction
stakeholders’ future actions 6. Alumni indication that they would 5. Satisfaction with quality of teaching
attend again in business courses compared to
7. Employer ratings of graduates’ non-business courses
preparation 6. Satisfaction with accessibility of
8. Board of Regents satisfaction with major course instructors
Mission appropriateness 7. Satisfaction with breadth of curriculum
Student outcomes Global perspective
Leadership Interaction with practitioners
Accountability Instructors presenting technology
Fulfilling mission issues
9. Community ratings of customer service Practical experiences
8. Satisfaction: facilities and computing
9. Satisfaction: training to use business
school computing resources
10. Satisfaction with availability of
11. Satisfaction with quality of classrooms
12. Satisfaction with size of enrollments
for required and major courses

(appendix continues)

May/June 2009 279

APPENDIX (cont.)

13. Student satisfaction with emphasis

on high-quality teaching
14. Value creation for students, parents,
and employers
Comparing expense of education
quality, rate the value of investment
15. Stakeholder referrals
Student (juniors, seniors)
16. Extent business program experience
fulfilled student expectations
17. Student retention of MCB relative to

Budgetary, financial, and market results 1. Tuition comparisons 1. State budget growth relative to inflation
Instructional and general administrative 2. On-campus room and board costs 2. Growth rate of direct cost per credit
expenditures per student, tuition and 3. Tuition revenues hour relative to inflation
fee levels, cost per academic credit, 4. Prioritization of funding 3. Proportion of state budget spent on
resources redirected to education from 5. Budget allocation to instruction instruction
other areas, scholarship growth 6. Budget allocation to institutional 4. Nonlabor expenditures
support 5. Growth in nonstate budget
7. Expenditures allocated to personnel 6. Annual tuition and fees vs. peers and
8. Year end budget variances from national average
budget plan 7. Student scholarships number
9. University reserves Value awarded
10. Foundation assets 8. Competition for high quality
11. Scholarship dollars awarded students vs. peers
9. Finley Freshman Scholars
10. Share of Western
Undergraduate Exchange
Scholar Program: diversity
11. Freshman admits and enrollees

Faculty and staff results 1. Key indicates of faculty and staff 1. Faculty qualifications
Innovation and suggestions rates; morale, well-being, and development Proportion of classes taught by
courses or educational programs 2. Employee satisfaction: academically or professionally
completed; learning; on-the-job All employees qualified faculty
performance improvements; Classified Number of executive professors
cross-training rates; collaboration Unclassified 2. Faculty survey
and teamwork; knowledge and skill 3. Faculty voluntary turnover Salary, promotion, and tenure
sharing across work functions, units, 4. Classified staff grievances process rating
and locations; employee well-being, 5. Diversity: 3. Degree to which senior faculty
satisfaction, and dissatisfaction Women faculty mentor junior faculty
Minority faculty 4. Intellectual contributions
6. Discrimination and harassment Refereed research in 5-year window
7. Faculty with doctorate 5. Staff technology certifications
8. Professional development 6. Faculty satisfaction
expenditures Overall
9. Satisfaction with opportunities for Evaluation of undergraduate program
training or professional development Faculty sharing a common vision
10. Evaluation of Microsoft training Computer support (hardware and
11. Safety training software)
12. Injury or accident rates 7. Staff satisfaction
13. Worker’s compensation claims Well-being and attitudes
14. Worker’s compensation experience Overall satisfaction and comparison
modification factor to UNC

(appendix continues)

280 Journal of Education for Business

APPENDIX (cont.)

Organizational effectiveness results, 1. Distinctive programs 1. Student quality

including key internal operations’ 2. Undergraduate curriculum Freshman
performance measures 3. Federal grant expenditures ACTs > 24
Capacity to improve student perfor- 4. Laboratory-based instruction Average ACTs
mance, student development, education 5. Enrollment Transfer in GPA
climate, indicators of responsiveness to 6. Distance learning opportunities 2. Graduates produced
student or stakeholder needs, supplier 7. Audit compliance Number
and partner performance, key measures 8. Safety and security performance Rate of increase vs. UNC
or indicators of accomplishment of 9. Support services effectiveness: 3. Alumni placement survey
organizational strategy and action plans Current students Percentage not placed or attending
Alumni graduate school relative to UNC and
10. Employees’ assessment of budget- state unemployment rate
planning process Percentage placed in position
11. Information technology use related to major relative to UNC
12. Student assessment of 4. Support process performance
Computer labs Admissions
Library support Freshman business admits
Dining services Number
Student center services Average ACT
Resident life Finley Scholar commits
13. Purchasing transactions Career services
14. Efficient use of electricity College transition center
15. Trends in energy use Prebusiness
Student satisfaction
Advising center
Graduation rates relative to UNC
Audit issues
Annual giving in number and dollars
5. Student survey
Percentage citing reputation of
college or faculty as reason for
attending MCB
6. MCB press coverage
Stories on MCB or professors in
7. MCB vs. peers on value
Average class sizes vs. tuition and
Average class sizes vs. percentage
of doctorally qualified faculty
vteaching business core
Ratio of student majors to lab
desktop computers
8. MCB value for students’ average
starting salary/4 years of tuition
and fees
9. Pattern of MCB accomplishments
demonstrating organizational

Governance and social responsibility [This component not added to Baldrige 1. Satisfaction with business curricu-
results National Quality Program until 2003.] lum instructors presenting ethical
Fiscal accountability, both internal issues
and external; measures or indicators of 2. Satisfaction with business
ethical behavior and of stakeholder curriculum instructors presenting
trust in the governance of the social responsibility issues

(appendix continues)

May/June 2009 281

APPENDIX (cont.)

organization; regulatory and legal 3. Percentage of faculty contributing to

compliance; organizational citizenship United Way
4. No violations or citations for prior 5
Affirmative action
Equal employment
Treatment of students
5. Faculty or staff involvement (local
and regional)
University service
Number of committee chairs
Number on committees
College service
Percentage on committees
Department service
Percentage on committees
Community service
Percentage on committees

Note. Adapted from the University of Wisconsin–Stout 2001 Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award application summary and the Kenneth W. Monfort College
of Business 2004 Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award application summary with permission.

282 Journal of Education for Business

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.