COVID-19 is forcing alterations to administrative communication. Higher education institutions transitioning online during the pandemic offers a fertile ground to analyze what happens to organizational communication within administration when the mode is primarily remote. Using a content analysis of emails and participant interviews, this work finds that while administrators intend to communicate empathy, messages fall short of fostering connection with faculty due to failing to cultivate buyin through quality feedback channels. The takeaways of this study of remote communication is that despite its mode, communication must be two way, and the authenticity of organizational communication becomes more important under pressure-filled circumstances.
AraralE. (2009). The strategic games that donors and bureaucrats play: An institutional rational choice analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 853–871.
2.
BakerD. J. (2019). Pathways to racial equity in higher education: Modeling the antecedents of state affirmative action bans. American Educational Research Journal, 56(5), 1861–1895.
3.
BarnardC. (1971). The functions of the executive: 30th anniversary edition. Harvard University Press.
4.
BovairdT. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.
5.
BozemanB.FayD.GaughanM. (2013). Power to do . . . what? Department heads’ decision autonomy and strategic priorities. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 303–328.
6.
BraxtonJ. M.HirschyA. S.McClendonS. A. (2011). Understanding and reducing college student departure (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 30, Number 3). John Wiley.
7.
BuschP. A.HenriksenH. Z. (2018). Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion. Information Polity, 23(1), 3–28.
8.
ChristensenT.LægreidP.RykkjaL. (2011). Organizing for crisis management: Building governance capacity and legitimacy. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 887–897. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12558
9.
CollierD.FitzpartrickD.DellM.SnidemanS.MarsicanoC.KelchenR. (2021). We want you back: Uncovering the influences on in-person instructional operations in fall 2020 (C2i Working Paper Series, No. 210101, pp. 1–57.). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3778772
10.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research. SAGE.
11.
DealT.KennedyA. (2000). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Revised ed. Basic Books.
12.
de BoerN. (2020). How do citizens assess street-level bureaucrats’ warmth and competence? A typology and test. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 532–542.
13.
DolamoreS. (2021). Detecting empathy in public organizations: Creating a more relational public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 43, 58–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1700458
14.
DolamoreS.LovellD.CollinsH.KlineA. (2020). The role of empathy in organizational communication during times of crisis. Administrative Theory & Praxis. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2020.1830661
15.
FayD.FryarA.MeierK.WilkinsV. (2020). Intersectionality and equity: Dynamic bureaucratic representation in higher education. Public Administration, 1–18.
16.
GoodenS. (2014). Race and social equity: A nervous area of government. Routledge.
17.
GoodinR. E. (1982). Rational politicians and rational bureaucrats in Washington and Whitehall. Public Administration, 60(1), 23–41.
18.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003. 539. U.S. 244
19.
Grutter v. Bolilnger, 2003. 539. U.S. 306
20.
HarritsG. (2019). Stereotypes in context: How and when do street-level bureaucrats use class stereotypes?Public Administration Review, 79(1), 93–103.
21.
HillH. (2003). Understanding implementation: Street-level bureaucrats’ resources for reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3), 265–282.
22.
Hopwood v. Texas, 1996. 78. U.S. 932
23.
HoustonJ.HawthorneJ.PerreaultM.ParkE. H.Goldstein HodeM.HalliwellM. R.McGowenS. E. (2015). Social media and disasters: A functional framework for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters, 39(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12092
JenkinsP. D.FinkJ. (2016). Tracking transfer: New measures of institutional and state effectiveness in helping community college students attain bachelor’s degrees. Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
26.
KatzD.KahnR. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. John Wiley.
27.
KeiserL. R. (2001). Street-level bureaucrats, administrative power and the manipulation of federal social security disability programs. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 1(2), 144–164.
28.
KeiserL. R. (2010). Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ decision making: Determining eligibility in the social security disability program. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 247–257.
29.
KelchenR. (2018). Higher education accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.
30.
KrznaricR. (2015). Empathy: Why it matters, and how to get it. Perigee.
31.
LemberV.BrandsenT.TõnuristP. (2019). The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1665–1686.
32.
LiA. Y. (2017). Covet thy neighbor or “reverse policy diffusion”? State adoption of performance funding 2.0. Research in Higher Education, 58(7), 746–771.
33.
LipskyM. (1971). Street-level bureaucracy and the analysis of urban reform. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 6(4), 391–409.
34.
LipskyM. (1983). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.
35.
LovellD. (2018). Gauging the administrative impact of political ideology Rifts between legislatures and higher education in the context of Texas’ campus carry law. Critique.
36.
LynnL.Jr. (2001). The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: What traditional public administration really stood for. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 144–160.
37.
MazzeiA.RavazzaniS. (2014). Internal crisis communication strategies to protect trust relationships: A study of Italian companies. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525447
38.
McCullochA. (2009). The student as co-producer: Learning from public administration about the student–university relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 171–183.
39.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1991). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. In PowellW.DiMaggioP. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (1st ed., pp. 41–62). University of Chicago Press.
40.
NiskanenW. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Transaction Publishers.
41.
OstromE. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087.
42.
PetersB. G. (2009). Still the century of bureaucracy?: The roles of public servants. Public Policy and Administration, 30, 7–21.
43.
PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. 1st edition. University of Chicago Press.
44.
ProttasJ. (1979). People processing: The street-level bureaucrat in public service bureaucracies. Lexington Books.
45.
RobinsonS. E.PudloJ. M.WehdeW. (2019). The new ecology of tornado warning information: A natural experiment assessing threat intensity and citizen-to-citizen information sharing. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 905–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13030
46.
SaldanaJ. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.
47.
ScharpfF. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic?Oxford University Press.
48.
ScheinE. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass.
49.
ScheinE. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. 4th Edition. Jossey-Bass.
