Improving organizational culture in two academic pharmacy departments: a mixed methods approach

Abstract

Background and Objectives The diversity of faculty roles in pharmacy academia, including practice and tenure-track, highlights the need for a positive organizational culture to bridge gaps, motivate faculty, and improve performance evaluations. The objectives of this study are to (1) measure organizational culture at two academic pharmacy departments that employ non-practice and practice faculty; (2) explore identified factors that influence organizational culture at the two departments; (3) provide preliminary recommendations to expand and/or address any components that emerge as influential to organizational culture in the two departments. Methods A multiple case study with an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach was used by first conducting a cross-sectional quantitative survey, followed by qualitative interviews to explain and interpret survey results. An organizational culture survey tool, validated within a pharmacy context, was sent to all tenured/tenure-track (TT) or contract (C) faculty (N=36) at the departments of Pharmaceutical Care & Health Systems (PCHS) and Pharmacy Practice and Pharmaceutical Sciences (PPPS) (PCHS had 10 TT and 10 C; PPPS had 8 TT and 8 C). The survey included 36 items of organizational culture representing six dimensions of culture (Competitiveness, Social Responsibility, Innovation, Emphasis on Collegiate Support, Performance Orientation, Stability). Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they believed each item of organizational culture was descriptive of their department on a three-point scale (does not describe my department, is somewhat like my department, very much like my department). Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to identify organizational culture areas rated both high and low. Online focus groups and one-on-one interviews (N=13) further explored the high and low rated organizational factors identified from the survey. TT and C participated in separate sessions. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Program evaluation strategies were used to frame preliminary recommendations. Results Overall survey response rate was 77% (28/36), with a PCHS response rate of 75% (7/10 TT; 8/10 C) and a PPPS response rate of 81% (8/8 TT; 5/8 C). Across the two departments a mixture of TT and C faculty participated in online focus group sessions and one-on-one interviews (N=13). For the PCHS department, high ranked organizational dimensions were Emphasis on Collegiate Support and Stability. Low ranked dimensions were Social Responsibility, Innovation, and Performance Orientation. Further exploration of the survey results revealed three themes: “Emphasis on collegiate support is overall improvement in the sense of being visible and valued for different contributions”, “Innovation emerges from bold thinking, investments, and diversity”, and “Performance orientation is affected by lack of identity of who are as a department.” Recommendations for organizational culture change and maintenance included creating social events to increase celebrations of faculty work, encouraging faculty to identify and take risks in innovative initiatives with proper monitoring and follow up, and coordinating with the College the development of clear and transparent criteria for reward allocation. For the PPPS department, high ranked organizational dimensions were Competitiveness, and Emphasis on Collegiate Support. Low ranked dimensions were Innovation, Performance Orientation, and Emphasis on Collegiate Support – Mentoring. Further exploration of the survey results revealed four themes: “Striving to be unique from other programs promotes innovation and attracts new students”, “Innovation is bold thinking, diversity and investing in new hires”, “Fostering personal and professional development through mentoring is encouraging use of resources and cross-campus networking”, and “Performance Orientation is promoted by sharing and celebrating each other’s contributions.” Recommendations for organizational culture change and maintenance included facilitating cross-campus networking/mentoring by providing resources for mentorships, coordinating with the College on communicating the department’s accomplishments, and identifying contract clinical faculty needs to be innovative. Conclusions Aspects related to encouraging risk-taking in innovation with support, promoting diversity of expertise, and celebrating faculty contributions can affect college’s culture and be leveraged to promote culture’s outcomes such as improved performance and productivity. This study offers a reproducible approach to measure and examine aspects that may affect organizational culture at colleges of pharmacy. While the recommendations were tailored to the specific contexts of the two departments in the study, other colleges of pharmacy can adapt these strategies to suit their unique circumstances.