Abstract

Esprit-De-Corps encompasses cohesion, loyalty and unity within an organization. The study is focused on the existing threads of Esprit-De-Corps and its comparison in public and private sector universities. A sample of 533 faculty members was taken. The team STTEPS (T-TAQ) questionnaire was adapted for collecting the data. The data was analyzed through Percentage, mean and t-test. It was concluded that the strands of Esprit-De-Corps are more prevalent in private sector universities. It is recommended that faculty members may be involved in decision making process and trainings pertaining to leadership, communication and other live skills may be imparted.

Key Words

Esprit de Corps, Public, Private, Universities

Introduction

Organization is a tool of achieving certain objectives which justifies its existence (Jones & Methew, 2018).The organizational objectives and their structures are directly correlated with the nature of its product or services and their members are required to work with unity and team spirit (Nel, Werner, Haasbroek, Poisat, Sono, & Schultz, 2008). The present day world of communication and information technologies has turned the entire continents into a global village. Moreover, a plethora of information has transformed the areas of the nuke and corner of the world into one working place (Robbins & Coulter, 2017). Various members of the organization are linked with one another in a different relationship (Sadler, 2010). Organizational members demonstrate their commitment to organization through their quality work, and performance for the improvement of organization. A committed workforce is the blood of the organization as commitment of employees generates cohesiveness amongst organizational members. They work as a whole which result in achieving team spirit and unity. This cohesiveness binds people in emotional and psychological bonds and eventually generates Esprit De-Corps (Pfeffer, 1998). Predictable results are destined to be achieved with the common efforts while working in a team with team spirit (Newstorm, 2007).The effective component of attitude inculcates positivity leading him/her towards motivation and incentives which develops an emotional bond amongst the workers which unites them to achieve organizational objectives. The workers are more organization centered rather than self-centered (Antic & Ceric, 2008).

Unity of work and loyalty towards the organization brings forth the required level of Esprit-de-corps as being an instrument in setting and achieving the goals while maintaining healthy organizational culture (Armstrong &Barron, 2002). Esprit-de-corps entails commitment loyalty, faithfulness, unity and a high level of commitment as well as attachment with the organization (Moradzadeh, Parmuzeh, Asoudeh, & Kord Moradzadeh, 2015). An individual worker with a fair level of the feelings of Esprit-de-corps identifies with the group/organization generating self-motivation, strong sense of responsibility, a high level of self-pride and last but not the least unchallengeable sense of loyalty towards colleagues and organization (Boyt, Lusch, & Mejza, 2005).A number of tools and policies of human resource management combine together to generate Esprit De-Corps and thus the culture of commitment prevails (Sadler, 2010).

An educational institution like a university is supposed to transform the youth into a mature, responsible, culture and a futuristic segment of the society (Cummings & Worley, 2016).  Albeit, this very task is not an impossible one but definitely more challenging and demanding and teacher play a crucial role in this process. The present study has taken its cues from the famous management scientists Mr. Henri Fayol’s theory of management with a more focus on its 14th Principle “Esprit De-Corps” (Rodrigues, 2001). 

Objectives of the Study

The objectives of research were:

• To explore the strands of Esprit-De-Corps in Public and Private Sector Universities.

• To analyze the difference in Esprit-De-Corps of Public and Private Sector Universities.

Research Questions

1. What are the common strands of Esprit De-Corps exist in Public and Private Sector Universities?

2. Is there any difference in strands of Esprit-De-Corps of Public and Private Sector Universities?

Literature Review

The current study is based on the 14th Principal of Henri Fayol’s theory of management that is “Esprit De-Corps” which pertains to the unity and loyalty of employees in an organization (Little et al, 1959) .According to Henri Fayol team spirit is mandatory for any organization for successful accomplishment of its goal. 




Esprit De-Corps

Effective social interaction ensures a harmonious relationship among team members and is a complex phenomenon. The primary duty of a leader is to bring the workers close and cooperate in order to meet the organizational goals. The enhanced interaction brings forth mutual help, lowers absenteeism and lowers turn-over. It results in a higher production with a team spirit (Thompson, 2013).Group cohesion promotes high morale and releases the creativity as well as energies of the members / individuals. High morale brings togetherness and unity in the group provided other adverse factors are addressed which affects the group cohesion (Leighton, 1943).  Group cohesion is the emotional attraction within organizational members (Hogg, 1992). Group cohesiveness takes time to establish as members of a group require reasonable time to settle down and quick or rapid changes would likely to affect morale, commitment and cohesiveness of a group (Kinicky, Kreitner, 2009). The nature of a task, work place and physical proximity are the important factors for strengthening the group cohesiveness or weaken the cohesiveness (Agarwal, 2010).The role of leadership and of management cannot be oversimplified when group cohesion is discussed. The leader or the manager gives guidance, resolves small conflicts, hire right man for the right job, incentivized through capacity building / monetary rewards and above all trust (Kezar & Eckel, 2002).

The external threats are very important in determining the belongingness of the workers to strengthen the group cohesion. Other factors which affect the group cohesion are decision making, mutual acceptance, motivation for productivity, organizational internal controls etc. In short effective working group has the characteristics of common shared aims, objectives, acceptance of group norms and values, feelings of mutual trust and inter dependency, participatory decision making, free flow of communication and exchange of information open expressions, self-resolution to solve conflicts and team spirit which enhances the performance (Jaworsky & Kohli, 1993). 




Dimensions of Esprit-De-Corps

a. Team Structure

Organizational structure pertains to the division of work within organizations and teams. The extent to which this structure is responsive to its contingencies  include its size, environment, strategy, technology and its effectiveness (Galbraith,2008).Organizational structure is designed on the basis of the goals of organization so that these goals could be achieved efficiently and effectively. (Bagchi, 2013). Organizational structure or a team structure refers to the formal system of task, authority and responsibility with coordination and motivation to achieve the goals by using resources efficiently and effectively (Jones & Methew, 2018).Team structure is generally of two types depending on the context and situation or challenges of the team:




Mechanic Structure: Mechanic structure involves individual specialization with focus on individual task. Authority lies with top management and hierarchy is vertical and clearly defined .Decision making is central and each task of individual is monitored closely. This kind of team structure is best suited for organizations with stable internal and external environment (Burns & Stalker, 1996).




Organic Structure: Organic structure promotes flexibility and adaptation with changing internal and external environment. Decision making is distributed through the hierarchy and employees work on multiple tasks and carries out multiple activities with coordination and cooperation(Jones & Methew, 2018).In order to ensure the successful achievement of goals, the team structure must have correct alignment  coupled with suitable reporting relationships ,decision making mechanism and control depending upon the nature and goal of organization(Bachi,2013).A team leader can be more effective on working relationship and bringing about the harmony and making his team more effective (Thompson, 2013).Team leaders are instrumental in making their teams more professional by influencing them to achieve the goals(Nygren & Levine, 1996).




b. Team Leadership

Team leader is not a separate entity from the team or a group rather a team leader is an integral part of the team. An effective leadership of a team needs to understand that how patiently it shares information, how skillfully it trusts the team, how much it is willing to voluntarily give up over awing authority and how it learns to aptly and skillfully understands to intervene. (Northouse, 2007) An effective and practical leadership of a team understands as how to leave the team alone and knows when or how to handle the team to get involved to proceed further. A team leader understands when and how much central control or exertion of its authority is needed and how much support and help is needed to be extended when the team is in trouble.   The team leader enables the team members to become leaders in due course of time. The effectiveness of the team depends upon the team leader (Thompson, 2013).  Many social and management scientists have stressed that certain individuals are primarily responsible for the developing a team, defining organizations goals to other members and structuring the teams in order to achieve the organizational goals. The role of a team leader is equally important in defining team direction and organizing the team members in such a way that each member contribute towards team and organization significantly to enhance the team effectiveness. So the effective leadership is the most vital but critical factor in determining the level of the success of an organizational structure (Drafke, 2011). Team leadership role includes coaching, liaison with external constituencies, conflict management and troubleshooting with wisdom and a vision (Jago, 1982).

  

c. Mutual support

Mutual support is the all-embracing force and support for the team skills and their development (Williamson & King, 2005).Mutual support fills  gaps in achieving the task to meet goals of an organization that is why the management scientists like Porter El al call it “back-up behavior” because mutual support involves an all-out effort of all members of the group. 

Through mutual support the teammates are more intimate, makes less errors or mistakes, they are more effective towards each other, they are more into the process of self-correction than individualism. The teammates are assigned duties and responsibilities more scientifically, the task can be relocated for better results and above all the teammates are more resilient. The results of the mutual support can be best seen when the team or the teammates are overburdened, stressed, lack skill to perform their tasks and they are making errors in technical matters or in their judgments. It works best when a teammate sees another teammate in a trouble and he or she is able to help others in such dire situation. Mutual support offers task assistance, provides social support, feedback for improvements and inculcates team adoptability, mutual trust and team orientation. Mutual support involves the willingness and preparedness to support the teammates when it is needed or otherwise even. Mutual support is normally encouraged and enhanced by the effective and practical leadership. It is also observed that the mutual support is derived from the situational analysis which necessitates the introduction of mutual support for attaining the organizational goals (Robbins & Coulter, 2017). 

Mutual support involves all the teammates for assisting one another, for providing and receiving feedback and also for exerting the element of assertiveness and for the required advocacy. In this way the mutual support becomes the very essence of team work. Because it provides a kind of safety network to the teammates in the difficult times and through an effective leadership the organization can solve all day to day work related issues which may harm the output of an organizational process for attaining the best results (Sadler, 2010). 




d. Situation Monitoring

Situation monitoring provides an understanding of   trends and upcoming problems as well as bottle necks of the present situation. In the present day world of rapidly changing trends, technologies and competition the situation analysis provides sufficient conclusion to draw organizational comparisons linked to its competitors. The priorities setting of an organization is determined by the situation analysis along with setting of future strategies policies and plans to compete and grow in the market. While doing the situation analysis for achieving high standards of assurance and authentic conclusions, the SWOT analysis are done (Cummings & Worley, 2016). 

The changing environment is at time very helpful but side by side very critical and challenging for an organization. The organization in such competitive environment must be linked with the external environment. The uncertainty in the external environments increases due to globalization and this entails the situation analysis in order to gauge the intensity of changing scenarios and environments in order to formulate future strategies and present course of action accordingly. External environment consists of the following aspects in determining the policy formulation. 

Natural environment: By natural environments here we mean physical resources, natural biological life and climate. 

Societal environment: This environment includes study of socio-economic, socio cultural, politico-legal and ethnological aspects. 

Task environment: The task environment pertains to government policies and its priorities, the communities in a society, customer behaviors, finance and creditors, labor unions and market competitors. 

Organizations respond to rapidly changing environments timely and professionally and get a cutting edge to obtain competitive advantage. In such situation the ability of the managers and their professional acumen, vision and wisdom in fact saves the organization because the organization as a whole may not be able to confront all the challenges of the rapidly changing environment (Wheelen, et al., 2018).




e. Communication

Organizational activities are carried through communication in all directions. Communication plays a very critical role as a life line and as the blood of an organization (Keyton, 2011). The level of interaction amongst the team members largely depends on the channels of communication. There is a need to have sufficient channels of communication in a team or a group to handle the problems in HR management and tasks distribution for achieving the objectives of the organization (Pareek, 2010).  The members of a team shape the individual perception and participation in an organization. And these groups play very central role for a planned organizational change. All this change can best be built and brought in reality through effective communication which leads to healthy and productive environments for achieving the organizational goals (Mullins, 2013).

 Team needs to work with the spirit of group cohesion and cohesiveness in order to establish strong relationships amongst all the members of the organization or even in a group. The communication plays a vital and significant role in determining the effectiveness of leadership. A strong leadership lays the foundations of working environment conducive enough to achieve the organizational goals. The team leadership builds team formations, constantly works on its preparedness and readiness to contribute as well as perform to the optimum. Such advocacy is done no less than the management scientists of the caliber of Bruce Tuckman. The organization needs to keep itself abreast to the all stages of group formation, group performance which ultimately depends on team relationship (Gibson, 2013).

Hypotheses

Ho1 No significant difference exists between Esprit De-Corps of Sectorial Universities.

Ho2 No significant difference exists in terms of team structure of Sectorial Universities.

Ho3 No significant difference exists in terms of leadership of Sectorial Universities.

Ho4 No significant difference exists in terms of mutual support of Sectorial Universities.

Ho5 No significant difference exists in terms of situation monitoring of Sectorial Universities.

Ho6 No significant difference exists in terms of communication of Sectorial Universities.

Methodology

Present study is descriptive in nature and is of survey type. Population of present study consists of Faculty members of three selected departments of Public and private universities. The population of study was (756) Faculty members. Sample size was 533 which were 70 % of the population. A questionnaire was adapted from Team STEPPS 2.0 Team Attitude Questionnaire (T-TAQ) . The final questionnaire contained five sub scales which were Team Structure, Leadership. Mutual Support, Situation Analysis and Communication. Cronbach’s alpha of instrument was .81.

Questionnaires were personally administered and out of 756 questionnaires, 533 returned and data was analysed on the basis of these 533 questionnaires.

Results

Table 1. Prominent Strands of Esprit de Corps

Indicators	Public Universities			Private Universities
	Mean	S.D	N	Mean	S.D	N
Communication	42.97	7.28	366	45.85	8.60	167
Team Structure	40.72	5.89	366	43.40	7.44	167
Mutual Support	39.92	6.15	366	42.46	7.02	167
Situation Analysis	35.10	5.89	366	37.97	7.44	167
Leadership	24.01	6.28	366	26.00	8.67	167

 Table 1 reflects that the strands of Esprit-De-Corps are prominent in both sectorial universities. The most prominent strands which contribute more in developing Esprit-De-Corps in both public and private universities is “Communication” demonstrated by its mean values , while “Team Structure” contributes on second number, “Mutual Support” on third number, “Situation Analysis” on fourth number and “Leadership” contributed on fifth number.

 

Comparison of Esprit-De-Corps

Second objective of the study pertains to comparison of Esprit de corps of Public and Private Universities. This comparison was made by applying t test on five sub scales of Esprit De-Corps i, e., Team Structure, Leadership, Mutual Support, Situation Analysis and Communication. Comparison was made by entering and processing data on SPSS and mean, standard deviation, t value and p values were calculated. Differences in subscales were calculated at .05 level of significance. Difference was marked as significant if p value was less than .05 and it was considered insignificant if p value was greater than .05 (Cresswell, 2011).

 

Table 2. Difference in Team Structure

	Mean	S. D	N	Df	t-Value	p-Value
Public	40.72	5.89	366	531	4.472	0.001
Private	43.40	7.44	167

Significant  t-value at .05 level

Table 2 demonstrates mean difference of Team Structure in Public and Private sector universities as it contains t value 4.427 while p-value .001 which indicated a significant difference in Team Structure of public and private sector universities and rejected the null hypothesis.  

Figure 1

Mean Score for the indicator Team Structure.



Table 3. Difference in Leadership

	Mean	S. D	N	Df	t-Value	p-Value
Public	24.019	6.287	366	531	3.45	0.001
Private	26.000	8.672	167

Significant t-value at .05 level

Table 3 indicates mean scores, standard deviation and means difference of Leadership and it contains t value 3.45 while p-value .001 which indicated a significant difference in Leadership of public and private sector universities and rejected the null hypothesis.

Figure 2

Mean Score for the indicator Leadership.



Table 4. Difference in Situation Analysis

	Mean	S. D	N	Df	t-Value	p-Value
Public	35.104	5.89	366	531	4.311	0.025
Private	37.970	7.44	167

Significant t-value at .05 level

Table 4 demonstrates mean difference of Situation Analysis in Public and Private sector universities as it contains t value 4.311 while p-value .025 which indicated a significant difference in Situation Analysis of sectorial universities and rejected the null hypothesis.

Figure 3

Mean Score for the indicator Situation Analysis.



Table 5. Difference in Mutual Support

	Mean	S. D	N	Df	t-Value	p-Value
Public	39.929	6.153	366	531	4.193	0.000
Private	42.461	7.025	167

Significant t-value at .05 level

Table 5 demonstrates mean difference of Mutual Support and it contains t value 4.193 while p-value .000 which indicated a significant difference in Mutual Support of sectorial universities and rejected the null hypothesis.

Figure 4

Mean Score for the indicator Mutual Support.



Table 6. Difference in Communication

	Mean	S. D	N	Df	t-Value	p-Value
Public	42.972	7.287	366	531	3.999	0.000
Private	45.850	8.609	167

Significant t-value at .05 level

Table 6 demonstrates mean difference of Communication and it contains t value 3.999 while p-value .000 which indicated a significant difference in Communication of sectorial universities and rejected the null hypothesis.

Figure 5

Mean Score of the Communication



Findings

Findings of the current study exposed that strands of Esprit De-Corps are present in Sectorial Universities. Mean score of Team structure unfolded that team structure of Private sector universities is quite stronger than team structure of Public Universities. Private Universities got higher score for situation analysis too. The 5th and last subscale “communication” was also found to be stronger in Private Universities.

The analysis of five subscales of Esprit De-Corps revealed that there is mean difference in the team structure of Sectorial Universities. The t value  4.472 and p value .001 indicated that this difference is significant on .05 level of significance. Mean difference  in Leadership with a t value of 3.45 and p value .001 indicated that there is significant difference in leadership which rejected our null hypothesis too. The mean difference, t value 4.311 and p value 0.025 revealed a significant difference for the sub scale situation analysis at .05 level of significance,  thus rejecting the null hypothesis. Subscale of Mutual Support revealed a mean difference, t value of 4.193 and a p value of .000 which means that the difference is statistically significant, hence the null hypothesis was rejected. The 5th sub scale communication showed a mean difference too .The t value for communication was 3.999 and p value 0.000 unfolded the statistically significant difference at .05 level of significance and finally rejected the null hypotheses.  

Conclusion

It is concluded that strands of Esprit De-Corps are found in Public and Private Universities but with a variance and this variance was further explored through one to one comparison. Team structure contributes in building Esprit De-Corps provided that feedback from higher ups is given, mission of university is shared with faculty members and faculty members must be considered as important member of universities. Significant difference was found out between team structure of Public and Private Universities. Sectorial comparison finally concluded that there is a marked difference between Esprit De-Corps. Private sector universities have comparatively stronger team structure, leadership, situation monitoring, mutual support and efficient communication mechanism than Public Universities.

Recommendations

Faculty members may be encouraged to indulge in decision making processes of the universities while providing them with relevant feedback about their work. Analogy of various Leadership styles may be conducted in order to assess the importance of strategic decision making and information sharing amongst peer groups. 

Leadership attributes, communication and other live skills can be enhanced via effective and relevant training programs in the universities.

Public sector institutes may formulate strategies to assess their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) time to time. 

Suggestions for Future Research

The study could be expanded such that cluster sampling can be done in four provinces in order to conduct a study which is a reflection of the overall population of the county. Moreover, study can be expanded horizontally such that number of faculty members can be increased and various other factors like culture, leadership and performance management can be independently studied for their impact on Esprit-De-corps

References

• Agarwal, R.D. (1982). Organization and Management: New Delhi, ND: Tata McGraw Hill Education.
• Antic, M., & Ceric, A. (2008). Organizational culture of faculty of civil engineering, University of Zagreb. Retrieved from http://crosbi. znanstvenici.hr/ datoteka/396954.Antic20Ceric.pdf
• Armstrong, A. (2003). Corporate Governance: Can governance standard change corporate behaviuor? Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics,5(2).1-10.
• Bagchi, N. S. (2013). Performance Management.( 1sted.). India: Cengage Learning.
• Bernard, J. Jaworski., Ajay, K.,& Kohli.(1993) Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53-70. Retrieved from Accessed: 10-08-2016 17:33 UTC
• Boyt, T., Lusch, R., & Mejza, M. (2005). Theoretical models of the antecedents and consequences of organizational, workgroup, and professional esprit de corps. European Management Journal, 23(6), 682-701.
• Burns.T., & Stalker, G. M.,(1966).The Management of Innovation, London. Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. (2016). Organizational Development and Change. (6th ed.). New Delhi, ND: Cengage Learning.
• Creswell, J. W. (2015).Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research.(4thed.). Pearson India Education Services.
• Drafke, M. (2011). The Human Side of Organization. (10thed. ).New Delhi, ND:PHI Learning.
• Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H., & Konopaske. R. (2013). Organizations, behavior, structure, processes. (14th ed.).New Delhi, ND: McGraw Hill Education.
• Hogg, M.A.(1992).The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity. New York: NY University Press.
• Jago, A.G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Journal of management science, 28(3), 315- 332. Retrieved from
• Jones, G. R., & Mathew, M. (2018). Organizational Theory, Design and Change. India: Pearson Education
• Keyton, J. (2011). Communication and organizational culture: A key to understanding work experience. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education. The journal of Higher Education,73(4), 435-460 doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0038
• Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2009).Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Skills and Practices. (2nd ed.). New Delhi, ND: Tata McGraw Hill.
• King, J. E. & Williamson, I. O. (2005). Workplace religious expression, religiosity and job satisfaction: Clarifying a relationship. Journal of management, spirituality & religion, 2(2), 173-198
• Leighton, A.H.A. (1943). Working concept of morale for flight surgeons. Milit Surgeon.(92).601-609.