This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University *Corresponding author. E-mail: asaurbie@walshcollege.edu Business, Management and Economics Engineering ISSN: 2669-2481 / eISSN: 2669-249X 2021 Volume 19 Issue 1: 131–149 https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2021.12629 MODELLING THE STAKEHOLDER ENVIRONMENT AND DECISION PROCESS IN THE U.S. HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM Ann SAURBIER * Management Department, Walsh College, Troy, Michigan, U.S.A. Received 31 December 2020; accepted 16 January 2021 Abstract. Purpose  – As higher education continues to be buffeted by challenges, college and uni- versity leaders must find a way to respond to these environmental forces. In the United States, accreditation plays an increasing role in the quality control and improvement process. The goal of this research is to gain a deeper understanding of this decision environment, and the stakeholders within that system, such that American higher education institutions may set and achieve goals more effectively. Research methodology – Grounded theory is utilized to create a conceptual framework depicting the American higher education stakeholder system. In addition to placing the actors within the system, this research is also designed to generate a stakeholder-focused institutional decision process model. Findings – When viewed in a systemic context, the accreditation process assumes a unique place- ment among the other critical stakeholders. With this understanding, higher education leaders may better understand, balance, and integrate the concerns of their various stakeholders, in a stakehold- er-focused decision process. Research limitations – While integrating multiple theories, to depict the American higher education stakeholder system and a stakeholder-focused decision process, this research does not operationalize or undertake the empirical testing of these theoretical models. Practical implications  – The influence of the dynamic external environment and the accreditation process combine to create extremely challenging decision-making conditions for higher education leaders. The ability to improve and balance the quality and ethical nature of decisions that impact their various stakeholders may assist these leaders in more accurately meeting both their institu- tional goals and the public good goals of higher education. Originality/Value – This study specifically seeks to integrate multiple theoretical constructs within the American higher education environment and accreditation process. The creation of a theoretical model that depicts not only the stakeholder environment but also a stakeholder-focused decision process may assist all higher education institutions. Keywords: higher education, accreditation, quality, stakeholder theory. JEL Classification: I23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00091-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00091-2 mailto:asaurbie@walshcollege.edu https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2021.12629 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4723-4288 132 A. Saurbier. Modelling the stakeholder environment and decision process in the U.S. ... Introduction The 21st century has created increasingly challenging decision conditions for higher educa- tion leaders. In the face of increased globalization, technological change, rising costs, and decreases in governmental subsidization, colleges and universities must still create and de- liver a quality education. This complex and dynamic environment has complicated not only the determination of what quality is within the higher education context, but also how that quality is adapted and enhanced in these turbulent conditions. In American post-secondary education, quality has historically been assessed through the accreditation process (Young, et al., 1983). Initially created to delineate reputable institutions more than a century ago the accreditation process remains “the central means by which quality is maintained and im- proved in American higher education” (Wolff, 1993, p. 91; Young et al., 1983). Accreditation may be seen as a quality control process when viewed with a business and management theory lens. As such, increasingly the argument has been advanced that busi- ness theory and solutions may assist higher education leaders in managing the environmen- tal complexity (Hou, 2010). A review of the literature however reveals that where there are benefits, the direct application, or even indirect translation, of these processes to the unique higher education context is more difficult than it seems on the surface. The goal of this study is to integrate systems theory, stakeholder theory, ethical theory and consumer theory within the American higher education environment to more appro- priately model the role the accreditation process plays in the quality management decision process. By gaining a deeper understanding of not only who the various stakeholders are, but importantly where the various stakes converge and diverge, higher education decision- makers may be able to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of decisions related to edu- cational quality. Further, within this decision environment, it is critical for higher education leaders to ex- amine their purposes, the likely the courses of actions to be taken to achieve those purposes and the ultimate impact of those decisions on the various stakeholder groups. As a result, the aim of this study is the development of a conceptual framework that integrates stakeholder, systems, ethical, and consumer theory to depict the American higher education stakeholder environment more completely. In addition to placing the actors within the system, this re- search is also designed to illustrate the stakeholder-focused institutional decision-making framework. Grounded theory methodology is utilized to detect emergent themes from the existing literature on each theoretical construct and its application within the American higher edu- cation environment. These themes enable the creation of a theoretical model of not only the stakeholder environment, uniquely placing the accreditation process within that system, but also the creation of a stakeholder-focused decision process model. Thus, as a result of this research, these newly created theoretical frameworks may assist higher education leaders in both mapping their current stakeholder environments, and in making decisions that not only further the mission, strategy and goals of an individual institution but more importantly as- sist all institutions in achieving the public good goals of higher education as well. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(1): 131–149 133 1. Literature review 1.1. The changing American education and accreditation landscape 1.1.1. Higher education The complex and dynamic global landscape possesses unprecedented challenges for higher education. Where the external environment of post-secondary education had remained sta- ble, with many elements virtually unchanged since inception, the dramatic pace of change in the late 20th and 21st centuries has presented an entirely new set of circumstances to be managed. In the United States, these challenges include population shifts, employability requirements, technology applications, and a declining perception in the value of a college education. Across the next several decades, population shifts, and demographic changes will impact the college-going populace. Although the United Nations Department of Economics and So- cial Affairs (2015) predicts the population worldwide will to continue to increase, the United States Census Bureau predicts a decline in the percentage of the population under the age of 18 by 2060 (Colby & Ortman, 2015). An additional decrease in the working population, aged 18–64 by 2060 is also predicted. The percentage of those currently attending a college or university has already begun to decline, with enrolment in the United Stated down 26% since 2010 (Education Data, 2020). Where international migration to the United States is expected to result in an overall net increase to the population by 2060, it is predicted that the majority of the foreign-born population emigrating to the U.S. will be adults. Currently, 2.3 million students, or 11% of the 21.8 million students studying in the U.S. are foreign born (Education Data, 2020). An additional impact of international migration is an increase in the diversity of the American population. A majority/minority cross-over in the racial and ethnic composition of the U.S. population is predicted by 2044, such that by 2060 there will be no single group as a majority (Colby & Ortman, 2015). In this way, the United States will have become a “plurality” of racial and ethnic groups. This shift in the composition of the United States population also has an impact on what has been in the past viewed as the “traditional” college student, usually aged 18–21. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics reveals that currently close to half of the students attending colleges and universities are 25 years old or older (Shapiro et  al., 2017). Further, almost half are enrolled part-time and dependent on income from their parental households (Shapiro et  al., 2017). Currently, women make up the majority enrolled in col- leges and universities and 35% of students are the first in their families to attend a higher education institution (Shapiro et  al., 2017). Combined, these demographic factors will sig- nificantly impact college enrolment levels, positively in some cases and negatively in others. A further external environmental influence colleges and universities must manage is the shifting demands of employers. These demands, including the desire for graduates to be im- mediately “job ready”, are becoming increasingly difficult to meet. In these days of rapidly changing technology, colleges and universities are often in the nearly impossible position of training students for jobs that have not yet been created. A 2018 study conducted by the National Association of Colleges and Employers [NACE] found marked differences between 134 A. Saurbier. Modelling the stakeholder environment and decision process in the U.S. ... the perceptions graduates and employers in terms of “career readiness”, with employer giv- ing graduates poor marks in the categories of professionalism/work ethic, oral/written com- munication, critical thinking/problem solving, leadership, career management and global/ intercultural fluency (NACE, 2018). Busteed (2019) identified a Pew Research study that found young adults in the U.S. today (15–21 years old) are substantially less likely to have held a paid summer job before entering college than any previous generation. Yet, while employers increasingly require candidates to possess undergraduate or gradu- ate degrees, access to higher education may be seen as a critical component of employability. Where advanced education as consistently been found to provide both personal and eco- nomic benefits, access to higher education has been negatively impacted by a dramatic in- crease in its cost (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). A comparison of the relative increase reveals that where the rate of inflation has risen approximately 115% since 1986, college and university tuition rates have increased by almost 500% over the same period (Wadsworth, 2011). This has resulted in a substantial increase in the accumulated student loan debt in the U.S., a total of $1.68 trillion in 2020 (Education Data, 2020). This total outstanding debt has grown 6 times faster than the national economy leaving the average student holding an average personal debt balance of between $30K and $50K (Education Data, 2020). This tremendous increase in the overall cost of college attendance has resulted in lower completion rates, with only 57% of students enrolled finishing their degrees within six years (Fain, 2017: Shapiro et al., 2017). As a result, approximately 30% of the United States popula- tion has attained a bachelor’s degree and only 4% hold an advanced degree (Huffman, 2009; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). Finally, technological advancement has had a pervasive impact on higher education. Computers, audio, and video communication technologies have extended the reach of the traditional classroom, providing far greater access to information than any other time in history. This has supported an increase in the accessibility pathway to higher education for both traditional and non-traditional students. In addition, the application of robotics and other production-based technology has been a driver in the shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a knowledge-based economy, resulting in the demand for a very different type of ‘skilled’ worker in the Information Age (Freeman, 2004; O’Neill, 2009; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). The need to equip knowledge workers with technical skills, but also “softer skills”, such as the ability to think critically and creatively, work collaboratively, embrace complexity, appreciate diversity, and synthesize volumes of information speaks to the need for a more diverse curriculum for 21st century higher education (Erickson, 2010; Tapscott & Williams, 2010). A 2019 review by the Society of Human Resource Managers (SHRM) found 3 of 4 employees lack soft skills, and more than half of those employers believe the education system have not been able to address this skill shortage (Wilkie, 2019). While American sentiments remain high on the perception that post-secondary educa- tion prepares individuals for success, many are much less apt to believe that higher education is “worth the cost” (Fishman et al., 2017). Moguluwa and Ewuzie (2013) studied the exchange relationship between the student, as a consumer, and higher education institutions as pro- vider or producer. They found that “consumer’s expectations, desires, needs, and wants are Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(1): 131–149 135 the same whether consuming manufactured products or educational services”, and as a result, colleges and universities must “assess and define quality and value … along the consumers’ line” (p. 32). Thus, where students do perceive wide and diverse value in higher education, the perceptions of price – in all its forms; total cost, psychic costs, and annoyances – are seen to be out of line (Moguluwa & Ewuzie, 2013). The interconnected nature of these forces of change, and the difficulty in managing all effectively as well as simultaneously, has led to a decrease in the perceived value of higher education (Fishman et al., 2017). As a result, the reductive, siloed, discipline-specific knowl- edge transmission processes of the past may no longer be sufficient to equip today’s college student for the contemporary challenges and conditions and has increasingly been called into question as an effective business model. This shift in the perceived value, and by extension the quality of higher education, has had a clear impact on the accreditation process as well. 1.1.2. The American accreditation process The origins of the American accreditation process can be traced to the foundational purpose of delineating college-level institutions from schools of all other types (Young et  al., 1983). Building from this base, the process has evolved over the last century to delineate reputable institutions, facilitate the transfer of coursework between institutions, and establish bench- marks of acceptable performance (Harvey, 2003; Nettles et  al., 1997). More recently, the preparation of a qualitative self-study enabled accrediting agencies to assist institutions in improving quality, as opposed to merely certifying to a predetermined level of quality (Gil- len et al., 2010). As a result, currently the accreditation process is one that is both complex and decentralized, having evolved as a system of institutional quality review that is both able to mirror and respect the vast diversity of the of the thousands of unique post-secondary institutions and programs of study (Saurbier, 2013). Uniquely, in the United States, the ac- creditation process is voluntary and may be conferred to either an entire institution or to a specific program and may be assigned by a private, a non-profit, a regional or a national accrediting body (Saurbier, 2013). It is clear therefore that visible transformations have taken place in the predominant role of the accreditation process. Across the last century, the accreditation process has emphasized quality identification, quality improvement, quality assurance, and finally quality assessment and accountability in turn (Gillen et  al., 2010). Importantly, this transition has not been merely evolutionary, with one goal replacing the next, but rather an additive process, with the current accreditation process having expanded to subsume and enact all previous and current roles and goals (Gillen et al., 2010). This additive process has been motivated by the changing conditions, both external and internal, in the higher education industry (Gillen et  al., 2010). Unfortunately, this process evolution has created conflicting views as well as criticism of what is, and should be, the em- phasis of the contemporary accreditation process. The current process is frequently criticized for being complex, bureaucratic, secretive, predominately based on institutional inputs as opposed to outputs, dependent on the volunteer peer reviewers, and consequently generates institutional feedback that meets neither the information needs of the colleges and universi- ties reviewed nor the public (Dickeson, 2006; Schray, 2006). 136 A. Saurbier. Modelling the stakeholder environment and decision process in the U.S. ... The use of multiple, regionally based accrediting agencies has also complicated the U.S. accreditation process. By promoting diversity among the nation’s institutions and dispersing the review of these institutions among six distinct review agencies, inconsistency between the regional standards and charges that some standards are more rigorous than others exists (Dickeson, 2006; Schray, 2006). Where the promotion of institutional diversity and indepen- dence has historically been a strength of the U.S. accreditation process overall, Gillen et  al. (2010) notes this does allow for variety to be introduced into the quality assurance review process, such that the accountability and control goals may be diminished. Within the United States system of accreditation, the process is one that has remained in- dependent, non-governmental, and self-regulating (Nettles et al., 1997). That status however is increasingly called into question due to the extreme dependence of contemporary colleges and universities on both state and federal funds (Schray, 2006). The current outlay of federal funds to higher education exceeds $100 billion on an annual basis (Woodhouse, 2015). As a result, Schray (2006) indicated that increasingly accreditation is less seen as voluntary and more a “requirement for doing business in higher education” (p. 2). With respect to institutional decisions regarding academic and institutional quality, the multiple and often conflicting purposes of the contemporary accreditation process compli- cates the accreditation process further (Saurbier, 2013). Whereas many believe an overrid- ing purpose of accreditation is the improvement of quality in education, the lack of clearly defined performance objectives complicates the accreditors’ ability to provide consistent counsel, promote programmatic diversity and academic freedom, as well as assist individual institution in making decisions that will advance rather than diminish effectiveness (Young et al., 1983). As a result, the American accreditation process has in turn emphasized quality identifica- tion, quality improvement, quality assurance, as well as quality assessment and accountability (Gillen et  al., 2010). Importantly, one role has not replaced the other, but rather the evolu- tion has been one that is additive. Gillen et  al. (2010) stated where accreditation agencies primarily view their own role as one of providing counsel for quality improvement, many external stakeholders view quality assurance and accountability as the primary roles of the accreditation process. 1.2. Education as a public good – or merely good for the public? 1.2.1. Public and private goods Samuelson (1954) defined public goods as possessing two essential components: non- rivalrous and non-excludable. Marginson (2011) clarifies these terms, indicating that a public good, such as the light emanating from a lighthouse, may be consumed by a wide number of people without being diminished (non-rivalrous) and at the same time con- sumption may not be restricted to a selected set of buyers or consumers (non-excludable). Marginson additionally states that many goods meet one but not the other criteria of non-rivalrousness and non-excludability, and those goods that meet neither criteria are considered private goods. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(1): 131–149 137 1.2.2. Evaluating higher education as a public or private good The need to educate widely, to achieve both functional and altruistic ends, is seen across his- tory. As a result, formal systems of education have developed, evolved, and played a significant role in shaping and advancing not only societies across time, but also the current processes by which individuals learn. While it is clear there are tremendous benefits associated with universal access and the massification of education, to individuals, nations, and society as a whole, these noble objectives come at a cost. The significant role of nations and governments across time, in both constructing and guiding education, speaks to the higher purposes and broader aims of education. As a result, many view higher education as a public good. There are however substantial differences between the economic definition of a public good and those things that are merely good for the public. The reductive and dichotomous definition of a public good limits the ability to differentiate clearly and cleanly goods that are public or private, education among them. Tilak (2008) states that higher education may be seen as a public good, since the provision of education to one does not diminish its provision to others, and individual consumption of education also does not restrict it’s consumption by others. Further, Tilak indicates that higher education may be seen as producing the public good of newly created knowledge, simultaneously benefiting both the individual and society as a whole. Cooper (2017) on the other hand, states, a result of the strict and specific economic considerations, “higher education is unambiguously not a public good”. Higher education is excludable, with the requirement to pay tuition, and there is a limit to the scalability of stu- dents in a classroom, after which the quality of education will be diminished, impacting the nonrivalrousness (Cooper, 2017). Using public sidewalks as an example, Cooper notes that as a public good, consumers are not charged for their usage or consumption and numerous consumers can take advantage of that good at the same time without adversely affecting oth- ers usage or enjoyment, but this argument does not hold for higher education. As a result, what many identify, but incorrectly label, as a public good are the positive externalities of higher education. Positive externalities exist when both the consumer and society at large benefit simultaneously from a good. The increases in knowledge, skills, and wages that accrue to the individual benefit society when that student graduates and becomes a productive part of the national economy (Cooper, 2017). Marginson (2011) as well notes that as a public good, higher education must be viewed in both the contextual and political space it occupies. In context, the impact of globalization, political, social, and technological change may be seen as drivers of the commoditization and marketization of higher education as a good for private sale rather than a public good. Williams (2016) concurred noting, “the acquisition and creation of new knowledge is very expensive and those who acquire or create it need to be reimbursed” (p. 131). Marginson (2011) also questioned the actual level of “public-ness” or public good of higher education, as it may be diminished by competition-inducing activities such as the published hierarchical institutional ranking systems. As a status-conferring process, these rankings serve to both strengthen an individual institution’s market-based competitive efforts as well as potentially weaken the underlying altruistic motives. 138 A. Saurbier. Modelling the stakeholder environment and decision process in the U.S. ... Finally, where the government’s substantial investment in higher education may enable it to be viewed as a public good, the actual treatment of higher education institutions and their need to be accountable for the receipt of those funds, may also be seen to diminish the public good aspects. As an example, a 2017 survey by the Columbia University Teachers College on the “public good” of higher education found that 76% of the 3,000 Americans surveyed believed that the use of public funds was an excellent or good investment, these returns on that investment were quantified as “personal enrichment and growth, and the wealth and suc- cess that a college diploma can bring” (Teachers College Newsroom, 2017). While this data does support the study’s claim, that where Americans generally see the “personal benefits to individuals, such as jobs, salaries or return to individuals on their investment of tuition and lost income,” as well as a general benefit to society for the value of higher education, it is clear that these results speak to the idea that higher education is good for the public  – but does not address the economic definitional considerations of a true public good (Teachers College Newsroom, 2017). 1.2.3. Evaluating accreditation as a public or private good Dickeson (2006) noted two distinct categories of purpose for the accreditation process, insti- tutional and public. The institutional purposes of accreditation include assisting individual colleges and universities on an ongoing basis in the processes of planned institutional and programmatic improvement, providing the information necessary to increase the quality of inputs into the organization, and the establishment of a foundation for the equitable, inter- institutional transfer of students and credit hours (Dickeson, 2006). The public purposes, however, aim primarily toward consumer protection. In this way, the accreditation process may be seen to accumulate, scrutinize, and communicate information to various stakeholders on the operations of an institution and return on investment metrics (Dickeson, 2006). In support of this point, Kelderman (2011) stated both the public and policy makers do expect the accreditation process to “serve as a stamp of financial stability; a fire wall against fraud and abuse; a barometer of basic academic performance; and a tool for parents of prospective students to compare the value of different colleges” (p. 1). In addition, as the American accreditation process has worked to achieve the dual and often conflicting purposes of assuring and improving quality, peer reviewers are tasked with both providing recommendations to improve quality as well as provide assurance to the public that the institution complies with all stated accreditation criteria (Higher Learning Commission, 2020). As part of these dual roles, evaluators must determine the specific stake- holders and to and for whom quality should be assessed, improved, controlled, and com- municated (Saurbier, 2013). As noted, due to the extreme institutional dependence on federal and state funds, accredi- tation may be seen more as a “requirement for doing business in higher education” (Schray, 2006, p. 2). In this way, accreditation itself may be seen as a private good rather than a public good. Gillen et al. (2010) stated institutional accreditation across the decades has become a “marketable asset” (p. 3). However, as the process developed to certify, maintain, and advance quality system-wide, it is as clear that accreditation does in fact serve a broader public good. At the national level, Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(1): 131–149 139 the accreditation can be seen to meet the definition of a public good. The accreditation of one institution does not diminish that of another and the “consumption” of accreditation by one institution does not limit the ability of any of the six regional accrediting bodies to confer accreditation on another. As a result, the argument for accreditation as a public good may be advanced, however, identifying higher education, and the accreditation process, as a purely public good may not be possible. 1.3. Applying management theory to higher education: benefits and difficulties 1.3.1. Systems theory While it may not be possible to cleanly qualify higher education or accreditation as a purely public good, there are definite public service benefits associated with education. As service- based organizations, colleges and universities today are facing increased competition for scarce resources, population declines, and technological advances in online learning. Com- bined, these forces are creating global enrolment rivalry. As a result, higher education insti- tutions are more easily viewed as businesses and applying management theory insights as institutions work to manage the dynamic external environment offers the potential to address these challenges in a more efficient and effective manner (Hou, 2010). It is clear that the formerly stable and predictable environment of higher education has been replaced by a more diverse, dynamic, and complex context (Davies et  al., 2001; Greenfield, 2005). According to Davies et al. (2001), universities today must view their mis- sions more broadly, with connections to the marketplace, as opposed to the vision of old, which was merely discovering and transmitting knowledge. Senge’s (1990) assertion, that a paradigm shift toward systems thinking enables a more accurate response to environmen- tal complexity and uncertainty, may also be seen to apply equally well to higher education institutions. Systems theory is grounded in the contention that organizations interact with their environments (Checkland, 1999; Kast & Rosenweig, 1972; Senge, 1990; Von Bertalanffy, 1969). As a result, higher education, and the American accreditation process, may be seen to serve both boundary-spanning and environmental scanning functions (Sambamurthy & Subramani, 2005; Yip et  al., 2011). Consequently, a systems perspective may help higher education leaders to not only gain a better understanding of the macro and micro level issues they must address, but importantly manage the systemic connections between those issues. 1.3.2. Stakeholder theory Viewing both higher education and the associated accreditation process in a systemic context then requires consideration of all elements associated with the system. By expanding the unit of analysis, from merely the individual college or university organization, to include a broader array of context-specific elements, systems thinking and systems theory provides the setting for a more complete and synthetic assessment of all issues facing an organization and all constituents (Ackoff, 1974). In this way, any and all stakeholders, by Freeman’s (1984) defi- nition, “any group or individual who can affect, or is affected, by the achievement of an or- ganization’s objectives” may be – and potentially should be – included in the analysis (p. 46). 140 A. Saurbier. Modelling the stakeholder environment and decision process in the U.S. ... An important component of Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder theory, which was created as a response to both the production view of the firm and Friedman’s (1962) stockholder perspective, is the moral and ethical implications. According to Friedman (1962), “there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activi- ties designed to increase its profits so long as it … engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud”. In this way, obeying the law becomes the driving force behind organizational decisions and actions. Freeman (1984) however, citing the enormous impact of external environmental change on organizations, disputed this perspective noting, “if you want to manage effectively, then you must take your stakeholders into account in a systemic fashion” (p. 48). As a result, the impact of an organization’s decisions on those both within and outside the organization becomes an important consideration in the decision-making process. Building forward from these di- vergent views, the application of the stakeholder theory’s broader perspective has the ability to assist institutions in accomplishing education’s morally grounded public good objectives. 1.3.3. Ethical theory Ethical theory generally includes three dimensions: actions  – the processes used to achieve a goal; agents  – those taking action; and ends  – the desired goal or endpoint (Wicks et  al., 2010). In all actions, there are decisions, purposes, and consequences. In an organizational setting, Wicks et al. (2010) assert the need for a moral foundation to decisions and purposes, in order to achieve favourable consequences for all stakeholders. In this way, moral guidelines drive the considerations of means and ends, allowing the decisions made to be defensible to all stakeholders and less swayed by self-interest, especially in the face of increasing external pressures and demands (Wicks et al., 2010). 1.3.4. Consumer theory Where a clear identification of who the stakeholders to both higher education and accredita- tion are may seem on the surface to be uncomplicated, a specific classification under Free- man’s (1984) model becomes less straightforward. Consumer theory states that a rational customer will allocate their scarce resources to achieve maximum utility (Koutsoyiannis, 1975). The identification of the “customer” in higher education however is problematic (Houston, 2008). Where students are most often identified as the customer, they may well be better thought of as the consumer. The customer is generally viewed as the party paying for a product or service, whereas the consumer makes use of the product or service (French, 2015). Students, parents, institutions in the form of scholarships, employers in the form of tuition reimbursements, and governments in the form of subsidies or student loans all may fund a student consumer’s educational endeavour. As a result, Bailey and Bennet (1996) consider a student’s future employer to be the most important customer. This separation of customer and consumer add tremendous complexity in clarifying and classifying those who are, and who are not, the customer. Similarly, the classifica- tion of the organizational production process elements as inputs, transformation, and outputs in the education space becomes equally problematic. However, combining and adapting both the systems perspective and stakeholder theory to higher education may assist both higher educa- tional institutions and the accreditation process in decisions associated with educational quality. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(1): 131–149 141 2. Methodology The goal of this study is the development of a conceptual framework that integrates stake- holder and systems theory to depict the American higher education stakeholder environ- ment more completely. In addition to placing the actors within the system, this research is also designed to illustrate the stakeholder-focused institutional decision-making framework. 2.1. Grounded theory To accomplish this research objective, grounded theory is utilized to create a conceptual framework that represents a theoretical system of actors and flows. Astalin (2013) notes that qualitative research is “probably the most flexible of the various experimental techniques”, and allows both meaning and theory to “emerge organically from the research context” (p.  118). In grounded theory, rather than beginning the research process “with a predeter- mined theory in mind, the formulation of theories stem from the data that allows one to explain … [and develop] new theory through the collection and analysis of data about a phenomenon” (p.  121). As a result, this research methodology generates outcomes that ex- tend beyond mere explanation, instead generating new insight that can form the foundation of new theory (Astalin, 2013). As grounded theory methodology is deployed to generated new theory through the re- searcher’s recognition of emergent themes (Astalin, 2013), Saunders et al. (2015) clarify that new theory goes beyond merely referring to existing theory. Instead, grounded theory research should generate a novel but logical case that draws from and extends existing concepts, rela- tionships, and explanations. This research study aims to utilize grounded theory to generate a conceptual framework depicting the American higher education stakeholder system. Data in grounded theory research may be obtained from a wide variety of sources. Most often interviews with individual subjects are conducted, however, Saunders et al. (2015) re- mind that “observation although literature review and relevant documentary analyses make important contributions” (p. 121). The systematic evaluation of either primary or secondary data allows the researcher to create a reasoned theoretical explanation for the observed phe- nomenon which can be presented either textually or diagrammatically. In this study, the data utilized include the existing literature on stakeholder, systems, ethical and consumer theory as well as literature on the current state of higher education and the American accreditation process. These existing theoretical constructs are integrated to generate a conceptual frame- work that not only more accurately depicts the multiple system actors and distinctive context of the overall accreditation process, but also that illustrates the unique role accreditors play as part of the quality decision process. 2.2. Modelling the generation of new theory Briggs (2007) notes where there is wide acceptance of the practice of modelling with sta- tistical data, the modelling of qualitative data is less prevalent. Arguing that the practice is equally powerful when qualitative data are analysed, she further states this technique is an effective methodology in the exploration of a phenomena. As Glaser and Strauss (1999) state 142 A. Saurbier. Modelling the stakeholder environment and decision process in the U.S. ... grounded theory methodology, an inductive qualitative research technique, can be utilized to discover theory from systematically obtained data these techniques may be combined to produce a visual representation of a newly discovered theoretical model that portrays the adaptation and integration of existing theories to a new context. This research study is only concerned with the conceptual development phase of the theory building process. Designed to produce only an initial theoretical model of the higher education stakeholder environment and a stakeholder-focused quality decision framework, the goals of this study do not seek to operationalize the resultant framework for empirical testing. Future research studies may be generated and tasked with both the operationaliza- tion of these conceptual frameworks and the production of process knowledge through the framework’s application. 3. Results 3.1. A conceptual model of the American higher education stakeholder system As the direct application of stakeholder, systems, ethical and consumer theory individually to American higher education and the accreditation process is problematic, this study employs grounded theory methodology to review the critical literature and develop a conceptual framework that integrates these theoretical constructs. Freeman’s (1984) initial graphical depiction of the stakeholder perspective placed the firm at the centre and constituents including customers, consumer advocates, owners, local com- munity organizations, governments, suppliers, environmentalists, employees, management, media, and competitors radiating outward. Over time, the image of that stakeholder system has been adapted to include context-specific elements, and in many cases to call stockholders and/or investors out separately. Wicks et  al. (2010) adapted this framework to depict those elements within the firm, and those outside, representing an even broader and more systemic view of the involved stakeholders. Further, the application of systems theory to higher education requires each individual institution to understand the broader context in which they operate. Although not exhaus- tive, the immediate stakeholders of an American higher education institution may be seen to include the institution’s students and faculty, the immediate community and the graduate’s eventual employers. Houston (2008) as well asserts the existence of a wide variety of both individuals and groups who hold a stake the educational process and added the post-sec- ondary education industry, governments, national economic stability, and society in general as higher education stakeholders. Using this framework as a foundation, an analysis of the literature on the current higher education environment and the American accreditation process reveals the existence of the following possible stakeholders: institutions, students, employers, faculty, local communities, accreditors, state and federal governments, national economies, the higher education indus- try, and society overall. Where additional specific subsets within each of these major groups exist, this list represents these constituencies at the macro-level. A further review of the litera- ture reveals the following themes as concerns of each of these stakeholder groups (Table 1). Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(1): 131–149 143 Table 1. American higher education stakeholder concerns (source: author’s compilation) Students Higher Education Industry – Value for price – Changing traditional student – Part-time college at- tendance – Women attending college – Cost of college attend- ance – Student debt loads – Access to college – Complex and dy- namic eternal envi- ronment – Population and demographic shifts – Global migration – Access to college for the public good – Access to/use of technology for in- struction – Increasing cost of college attendance Employers Government – Degree requirements for jobs – “Job ready” graduates – Need for ‘Soft-Skills’ – Knowledge based economy – Changing technology – Substantial state and federal funds invested – Defaults on student loans – Accountability to the public for the effective use of funds Institutions Faculty Accreditation National Economy – Complex and dynam- ic eternal environ- ment – Population and de- mographic shifts – Global migration – Access to college for the public good – Access to/use of tech- nology for instruction – Increasing cost of college attendance – Meeting ‘consumer’ expectations – Increased use of tech- nology in the class- room – Knowledge based economy curriculum demands – Demand to train for jobs that do not yet exist – Demands to train for soft skills as well as curriculum content – Meeting ‘consumer’ expectations – Additive evaluation roles – quality iden- tification, improve- ment, assurance, and accountability – Process criticisms – Regional standard differences – Public good value of accreditation – Meeting ‘consumer’ expectations – Tech-savvy and job ready workforce needed to advance economic growth – Inflationary pres- sures on the price of college attend- ance – Knowledge based economy – Changing technol- ogy requirements Community Society – Job ready students needed in the local economy – Decreasing demand for traditional college ed- ucation negatively im- pacts local economies – Job ready students needed in the glob- al economy – Knowledgeable citizens needed to participate in and advance society 144 A. Saurbier. Modelling the stakeholder environment and decision process in the U.S. ... With these higher education stakeholders and their concerns codified, the theoretical constructs associated with existing literature on stakeholder, systems, ethical and consumer theory, related to the current higher education environment and the American accredita- tion process, may be synthesized and integrated with this data to generate a conceptual framework. The goal of this theoretical framework is to not only more accurately depicts the multiple system actors, and the distinctive context of the overall accreditation process, but also to illustrates the unique role accreditors play as part of the quality decision process. As a stakeholder group, the American higher education accrediting bodies must be seen as a part of this system as they fulfil their function of reviewing and assisting each institution in continuous quality improvement. However, within the larger external higher education industry context these bodies fill a unique, boundary spanning role (Saurbier, 2013). Consist- ing of a voluntary corps of peer reviewers, the individual U.S. accreditation evaluators are each part of their own home institution. Fulfilling the assessment and accountability auditor role on behalf of the federal government however may be seen to designate these evaluators as agents of the government. Further, as an external quality control process, the accreditation evaluation is performed by peer reviews who are placed outside of an individual institution’s system, but within the larger higher education system. As a result, the unique role of the accreditation process and the peer reviewers must be accounted for as a part of the larger American higher education system. Figure  1© depicts a conceptual framework of the system that integrates these various American higher educa- tion stakeholders. Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the American higher education stakeholder system © Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(1): 131–149 145 3.2. A conceptual model of a stakeholder-focused institutional decision-making process With the stakeholders and their concerns identified, it is important for leaders of higher edu- cation institutions to determine where these concerns align and diverge as they contemplate decisions related to educational quality. In this action, higher education institutions must examine the ethical imperatives of ends, means, and actions. With their stakeholders and the concerns of each in mind, Wicks et al. (2010) pose the following questions to be considered across all stakeholders and stakeholder groups: – Which purposes are most important, to which stakeholders, and are there any clear priorities? – Which actions will best serve the critical purposes of the firm? – Will any stakeholders be harmed, feel negatively affected, or seek to hurt the firm in response? – Can natural alliances – positive or negative – be developed among stakeholders? – Are there alternative courses of action that would both meet organizational objectives and assist key stakeholders? (pp. 13–14). The address of these questions generates the information necessary to consider not only the systemic impacts of the decisions facing an institution, but also embeds the stakeholder concept into the strategic management process of the organization. In this way, institution-level decisions relating to educational quality may be made giving consideration to not only the institution’s unique individual context, mission, and public good aims, but also the impact that those decisions may have on the array of institutional stakehold- ers. Synthesizing these elements, a conceptual framework that integrated not only the systems and stakeholder theories, but prominently depicts the three dimensions of ethical theory – ac- tions, agents, and ends, but also the decisions, purposes, and consequences embedded within the actions may be created (Wicks et  al., 2010). By overtly giving prominence to the moral foundation of the decisions and purposes, favourable consequences for all stakeholders may be achieved. In this way, moral guidelines drive the considerations of means and ends, allowing the decisions made to be defensible to all stakeholders and less swayed by self-interest, especially in the face of increasing external pressures and demands (Wicks et al., 2010). Figure 2© depicts a conceptual framework that integrated these elements as a part of a stakeholder-focused institutional decision-making process. Figure 2. Conceptual framework of a stakeholder-focused institutional decision-making process © 146 A. Saurbier. Modelling the stakeholder environment and decision process in the U.S. ... Rather than uniquely applicable to higher education institutions, this morally grounded stakeholder focus can be applied to the American accreditation process. At the national level, the accrediting bodies may integrate not only the individual institutional concerns, but also the concerns of their multiple, and often conflicting objectives of quality identification, im- provement, assurance, and accountability, as they seek to meet the institutional and public good aims simultaneously (Gillen et al., 2010). Conclusions The potential for selected business and management theory-based solutions, to assist not only higher education institutions but also the accreditation process designed to determine and advance quality is clear, but not straightforward. The unique context of higher education necessitates the adaptation of both theory and practice to create an appropriate response to the challenges these institutions face. Where, on the surface, the American system of higher education may appear to be a simple and relatively stable system, this appearance of order and predictability may be misleading. As a complex and dynamic system, involving numer- ous elements, interacting in a nonlinear fashion, and without clear cause-and-effect relation- ships, the failure to appreciate the unique qualities differentiating education from businesses will result in the enactment of inappropriate solutions to many problems, the management of quality within the system among them. The construction of a new model, one that integrates applicable business and ethical theory, to more effectively model both the unique stakeholder environment and the stake- holder-connected decision processes within the American higher education accreditation process may assist both institutions and the regional accrediting bodies in better managing the complex environment and its associated challenges. In addition, this model may also help both address the moral and ethical aims of ensuring access to, and quality within, higher education. Finally, the interdisciplinary framework presented outlines the architecture of a com- prehensive, stakeholder-inclusive approach that may lead to the realignment the American higher education accreditation process, such that quality of the member institutions is de- termined, assessed, reported, and advanced more efficiently and effectively. As this study was only concerned with the conceptual development of this model, this research is limited by the fact that this theoretical model has not yet been operationalized to empirically test its efficacy. Presented with a conceptual model, further research may continue to explore and expand on this framework. Disclosure statement No monetary or other competing financial, professional, or personal interests from other parties were a part of this study. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(1): 131–149 147 References Ackoff, R. (1974). The future of operational research is past. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 30(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1979.22 Astalin, P. (2013). Qualitative research designs: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Social Sciences & Interdisciplinary Research. 2, 118–124. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Quali- tative-Research-Designs%3A-A-Conceptual-Astalin/baa7c8f5577b0b1798b5e9f559f5cbae32bf1a36 Bailey, D., & Bennet, J. V. (1996). The realist model of higher education. Quality Progress, 29(11), 77–79. Briggs, A. R. (2007). The use of modelling for theory building in qualitative analysis. British Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 589–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701434102 Busteed, B. (2019, March 29). Why aren’t graduates ready for work? They’re the least working genera- tion in U.S. history. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonbusteed/2019/03/29/why-arent- graduates-ready-for-work-theyre-the-least-working-generation-in-us-history/?sh=3c3262125e58 Checkland, P. (1999). Soft systems methodology: A 30-year retrospective. John Wiley& Sons. Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2015). Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. U.S. Department of Commerce. Economics and Statistics Administration. https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED578934.pdf Cooper, P. (2017, August 18). If higher education were a public good... Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/ sites/prestoncooper2/2017/08/18/if-higher-education-were-a-public-good/?sh=71e5aea73dc6 Davies, J., Hides, M. T., & Casey, S. (2001). Leadership in higher education. Total Quality Management, 12(7/8), 1025–1030. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544120120096197 Dickeson,  R.  C. (2006). The need for accreditation reform (Issue Paper). The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, Washington, D.C. http://www2.ed.gov/about/ bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/dickeson.pdf Education Data. (2020). College enrollment statistics. https://educationdata.org/college-enroll- ment-statistics#:~:text=Among%20adults%20over%2018%2C%20college,%25%20attend%20 2%2Dyear%20institutions Erickson, T. (2010). The leaders we need now. Harvard Business Review, 88(5), 62–67. Fain, P. (2017, December 15). National college completion rate rises again. Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/12/15/national-college-completion-rate-rises- again Fishman, R., Ekowo, M., & Ezeugo, E. (2017, August). Varying degrees: New America’s annual survey on higher education. New America. https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Varying- Degrees.pdf Freeman, K. (2004). Looking at and seeing possibilities: The compelling case for the use of human potential. Comparative Education Review, 48(4), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1086/423362 Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press. French, O. R. (2015, March 29). Understanding the difference between customer and consumer for effec- tive marketing. Shake Social Ltd. https://www.shakesocial.co.uk/understanding-difference-custom- er-consumer-effective-marketing/ Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo68666099.html Gillen, A., Bennett, D., & Vedder, R. (2010). The inmates running the asylum? An analysis of higher edu- cation accreditation (Policy Paper). Center for College Affordability and Productivity, Washington, DC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536283.pdf https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1979.22 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Qualitative-Research-Designs%3A-A-Conceptual-Astalin/baa7c8f5577b0b1798b5e9f559f5cbae32bf1a36 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Qualitative-Research-Designs%3A-A-Conceptual-Astalin/baa7c8f5577b0b1798b5e9f559f5cbae32bf1a36 https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701434102 https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonbusteed/2019/03/29/why-arent-graduates-ready-for-work-theyre-the-least-working-generation-in-us-history/?sh=3c3262125e58 https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonbusteed/2019/03/29/why-arent-graduates-ready-for-work-theyre-the-least-working-generation-in-us-history/?sh=3c3262125e58 https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2017/08/18/if-higher-education-were-a-public-good/?sh=71e5aea73dc6 https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2017/08/18/if-higher-education-were-a-public-good/?sh=71e5aea73dc6 https://doi.org/10.1080/09544120120096197 http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/dickeson.pdf http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/dickeson.pdf https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics#:~:text=Among adults over 18%2C college,%25 attend 2%2Dyear institutions https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics#:~:text=Among adults over 18%2C college,%25 attend 2%2Dyear institutions https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics#:~:text=Among adults over 18%2C college,%25 attend 2%2Dyear institutions https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/12/15/national-college-completion-rate-rises-again https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/12/15/national-college-completion-rate-rises-again https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Varying-Degrees.pdf https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Varying-Degrees.pdf https://doi.org/10.1086/423362 https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo68666099.html https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo68666099.html 148 A. Saurbier. Modelling the stakeholder environment and decision process in the U.S. ... Glaser,  B.  G., & Strauss,  A.  L. (1999). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206 Greenfield, W. D. (2005). Postscript: Where have we been? Where are we going in the study of organiza- tions? The Journal of Educational Administration, 43(1), 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230510577335 Harvey, L. (2003). The power of accreditation: Views of academics. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(2), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080042000218267 Higher Learning Commission. (2020). Criteria for accreditation. https://www.hlcommission.org/Poli- cies/criteria-and-core-components.html Hou, A. (2010). Quality assurance at a distance: International accreditation in Taiwan higher education. Higher Education, 61(2), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9331-9 Houston, D. (2008). Rethinking quality and improvement in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880810848413 Huffman, W. (2009). Investing in people for the 21st century (Working Paper No. 09025). Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Department of Economics. Kast,  F.  E., & Rosenzweig,  J.  E. (1972). General systems theory: Applications for organization and management. The Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447–465. https://doi.org/10.2307/255141 Kelderman, E. (2011, November 13). Accreditors examine their flaws as calls for change inten- sify. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/Accreditors-Examine- Their/129765/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en Koutsoyiannis, A. (1975). Modern macroeconomics. McMillian Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15603-0 Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education and public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2011.00496.x Moguluwa, S. C., & Ewuzie, C. O. (2013). Creating consumer value in higher education through mar- keting techniques. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 2(9), 27–33. National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2018, February 19). Are College Graduates “Career Ready”? https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/are-college-graduates-career-ready/ Nettles, M. T., Cole, J. J., & Sharp, S. (1997). Assessment of teaching and learning in higher education and public accountability. National Center for Postsecondary Improvement, Stanford, CA. O’Neill, M. (2009). Future work and work trends. Knoll Workplace Research. East Greenville, PA. Sambamurthy, V., & Subramani, M. (2005). Forward: Special issue on information technologies and knowledge management. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148665 Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), 387–389. https://doi.org/10.2307/1925895 Saunders, M., Gray, D., Tosey, P., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2015). Concepts in theory building. In L. Anderson, J. Gold, J. Stewart, & R. Thorpe (Eds.), A guide to professional doctorates in business and management (pp. 35–56). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921412.n3 Saurbier, A. (2013). Tacit quality leadership: A phenomenological exploration of quality perceptions op- erationalized in the American higher education accreditation process [Doctoral dissertation, Walsh College]. http://search.proquest.com//docview/1334957233 Schray, V. (2006, May). Assuring quality in higher education: Key issues and questions for changing ac- creditation in the United States (Issue Paper). The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Fu- ture of Higher Education, Washington, D.C. http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/ reports/schray.pdf Senge,  P.  M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Currency Doubleday. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206 https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230510577335 https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080042000218267 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9331-9 https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880810848413 https://doi.org/10.2307/255141 http://chronicle.com/article/Accreditors-Examine-Their/129765/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en http://chronicle.com/article/Accreditors-Examine-Their/129765/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15603-0 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2011.00496.x https://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/are-college-graduates-career-ready/ https://doi.org/10.2307/25148665 https://doi.org/10.2307/1925895 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921412.n3 http://search.proquest.com//docview/1334957233 http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/schray.pdf http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/schray.pdf Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(1): 131–149 149 Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Huie, F., Wakhungu,  P.  K., Yuan, X., Nathan, A., & Bhimdiwali, A. (2017). Completing college: A national view of student completion rates – Fall 2011 Cohort (Signature Report No. 14). National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, Herndon, VA. https://nscresearchcenter. org/signaturereport14/ Tapscott, D., & Williams, D. (2010). Innovating the 21st century university: It’s time! Educause Review, 45(1), 16–29. Teachers College Newsroom. (2017). An investment that pays off for society: Americans believe in high- er education as a public good, a new survey finds. Columbia University. https://www.tc.columbia. edu/articles/2018/july/americans-believe-in-higher-education-as-a-public-good-a-new-survey- finds/#:~:text=1%2B1%2B1-,A%20new%20survey%20from%20Teachers%20College%20finds%20 that%20an%20overwhelming,prosperity%20and%20development%2C%20and%20civic Tilak, J. B. G. (2008). Transition from higher education as a public good to higher education as a private good: The saga of Indian experience. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1(2), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516230802094593 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Educational attainment for workers 25 years and older by detailed occupation, 2009 (Table 1.11). Washington, D.C. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_111.htm U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Washington, D.C. https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/pre-pub-report.pdf United Nations. (2015). World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050. Department of Econom- ics and Social Affairs. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html von Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General systems theory: Foundations, development, and applications. George Braziller. Wadsworth, G. (2011, October 19). Sky Rocketing College Costs. http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Infla- tion_Articles/Education_Inflation.asp Wicks,  A.  C., Freeman,  R.  E., Werhane,  P.  H., & Martin,  K.  E. (2010). Business ethics: A managerial approach. Prentice Hall. Wilkie, D. (2019). Employers say students aren’t learning soft skills in college. Society of Human Resource Managers (SHRM). https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-relations/pages/ employers-say-students-arent-learning-soft-skills-in-college.aspx Williams, G. (2016). Higher education: Public good or private commodity? London Review of Educa- tion, 14(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.14.1.12 Wolff, R. (1993). The accreditation of higher education institutions in the United States. Higher Educa- tion in Europe, 18(3), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/0379772930180311 Woodhouse, K. (2015, June 12). Impact of Pell Surge: Federal spending has overtaken state spending as the main source of public funding in higher education. Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehigh- ered.com/news/2015/06/12/study-us-higher-education-receives-more-federal-state-governments Yip, J., Ernst, C., & Campbell, M. (2011). Boundary spanning leadership: Mission critical perspectives from the executive suite (White Paper). Center for Creative Leadership (CCL®), Greensboro, NC. http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/BoundarySpanningLeadership.pdf Young, K., Chambers, C., Kells, H., & Associates. (1983). Understanding accreditation: Contemporary perspectives on issues and practices in evaluating educational quality. Jossey-Bass Higher Education. https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport14/ https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport14/ https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2018/july/americans-believe-in-higher-education-as-a-public-good-a-new-survey-finds/#:~:text=1%2B1%2B1-,A new survey from Teachers College finds that an overwhelming,prosperity and development%2C and civic https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2018/july/americans-believe-in-higher-education-as-a-public-good-a-new-survey-finds/#:~:text=1%2B1%2B1-,A new survey from Teachers College finds that an overwhelming,prosperity and development%2C and civic https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2018/july/americans-believe-in-higher-education-as-a-public-good-a-new-survey-finds/#:~:text=1%2B1%2B1-,A new survey from Teachers College finds that an overwhelming,prosperity and development%2C and civic https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2018/july/americans-believe-in-higher-education-as-a-public-good-a-new-survey-finds/#:~:text=1%2B1%2B1-,A new survey from Teachers College finds that an overwhelming,prosperity and development%2C and civic https://doi.org/10.1080/17516230802094593 http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_111.htm https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/pre-pub-report.pdf http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Articles/Education_Inflation.asp http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Articles/Education_Inflation.asp https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-relations/pages/employers-say-students-arent-learning-soft-skills-in-college.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-relations/pages/employers-say-students-arent-learning-soft-skills-in-college.aspx https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.14.1.12 https://doi.org/10.1080/0379772930180311 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/12/study-us-higher-education-receives-more-federal-state-governments https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/12/study-us-higher-education-receives-more-federal-state-governments http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/BoundarySpanningLeadership.pdf