As competition in higher education grows both at home and abroad, how people see colleges and universities is becoming more and more essential. The outside of an organization seems to matter more now than it did in the past, in addition to the fact that it has become a bigger part of an institution’s strategy and direction. A positive reputation affects funding, goodwill, hiring, and enrollment (Belanger et al., 2002, p. 217). Examples include the entrepreneurial (Clark, 1998), social (Bleiklie, 1998), and service university (Cummings, 1996). The evolution of online identity heightens this importance.
The problems with the image are interesting not just because it costs a lot to try to go this way, but also because they provide us a glimpse into how higher education will change in the future. One can wonder, for example, if the attention that higher education institutions’ brand image gets is proof that they are losing their social purpose and becoming part of a shared field of effort (Gumport, 2000). This is probably the most harmful thing that can happen when universities play the branding game: they start to look and act like one other, which takes away their most prized quality: their uniqueness.
Introduction
Some people would say that this obsession with branding is just another example of how higher education can retain its basic values while also giving symbolic answers to the emerging needs of society (Mintzberg, 1983). In the previous few years, one of the most important things about higher education has been that facilities and activities were separate, or at least not very closely connected (Weick, 1976). This separation may also help it stay stable and flexible (Clark, 1983). But just because something worked in the past doesn’t mean it will work again, and the increased focus on brand image can make things harder for colleges and universities.
The dominance of audits also has an effect on higher education. More and more, national and/or independent evaluations and media scrutiny may focus on institutions to make them accountable for an image that has little to do with reality. From both an ethical and legal point of view (Belanger et al., 2002), they might be striking in terms of dropout rates (Levitz et al., 1999).
Identity and image: factors in the evolution of organizations
So, from a strategic point of view, one could say that making an image that fits with an institution’s organizational identity is important. The problem for higher education institutions is finding the right balance between keeping their own identities and the spirit of higher education while also adapting to the needs of a changing society. This article shows how recent developments in organizational theory could help colleges and universities compete better in a crowded market. It does this by looking at how important brand image strategy is when trying to connect the institution’s identity with its external one.
Below, we look more closely at the pros and cons of using this technique for the survival and growth of higher education institutions. We can still wonder if this has anything to do with development organizations, even if we describe branding strategy as the act of aligning an organization’s identity and image. Recent research in organizational theory has found that organizational identity is not as fixed as people used to think. In fact, most of the time, an organization goes through a lot of changes while trying to keep its identity.
Classical conceptions of organizational identity and image
But in order to better grasp how the process in question really works, we need to first look at how people usually see the organizations’ identity and image. Summary As competition in higher education rises both in the US and throughout the world, the perception of higher education programs is becoming a big problem. It looks that managing an organization’s public image is becoming more crucial than it used to be, and it is even affecting its strategy and direction in certain ways. This is because a good image could affect the school’s enrollment rate, faculty, resources, and goodwill (Belanger et al., 2002, p. 217).
New images have come to light for colleges and universities, such as the entrepreneurial university (Clark, 1998), the service university (Cummings, 1996), and the society university (Bleiklie, 1998). These are just a few examples of modern organizational principles that have led to the development of new dynamic branding strategies. The problem with visuals is interesting, and it will be interesting to see that higher education is moving in the correct direction because of New Letters on the Air and the money that is being spent on these projects.
Conclusion
For example, one can worry if the image of higher education institutions getting a lot of attention is an indication that these institutions are abandoning their social goal of becoming part of the mainstream (Gumport, 2000). If colleges succeed in their goal of being similar in some manner, they lose their distinctiveness and uniqueness, which are the hardest things to copy. This may be the worst thing that can happen because of the branding game. Some people, on the other hand, say that branding isn’t very important for higher education because it can only defend their firmly held views and give them some plausible symbolic responses to shifting societal norms (Mintzberg, 1983).
One of the most important things about higher education in the past has been how loosely structures and actions are connected (Weick, 1976). Clark (1983) says that this might be one of the reasons why it is so adaptable and long-lasting. But past successes don’t mean that future successes are guaranteed, and the brand image that customers are paying more attention to may make things harder for colleges and universities. The fact that brands and images are being evaluated and questioned more often is definitely the key concern (Power, 1997).