The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 2 - 90

Kevin R. McClure * James M. DeVita * Andrew J. Ryder

Cultural Clashes Between Private- and
Public-Sector Organizations
Cultural differences between private developers and public institutions point to the need
for intentional efforts aimed at promoting
relationship-building and trust. Although institutions and private developers share many
common goals (i.e., providing high-quality customer service, maintaining the physical integrity of facilities, and ensuring student health
and safety), they may differentially value these
goals and pursue them by different avenues.
For example, though Colonnade wanted to
promote student well-being, they were at times
more interested in achieving full occupancy,
which led to a strict policy against lease-breaking. This policy frustrated the resident director,
who viewed the inflexibility as detrimental to
students. Similarly, the values underlying the
work of housing department staff may diverge
in important ways from the values that guide
the work of private developers. Some housing
department staff members at SU were uncomfortable with what they perceived as Portico's
more corporate approach, contrasting it with
their student-centered approach in the field of
student affairs. The need for dialogue between
institutions and private developers stems from
cultural differences as the two organizations
pursue different goals. Despite the best efforts
of both sides, no amount of communication or
coordination may completely remove the existence of conflict.

The Student Experience
Data about the student experience was decidedly mixed. On the one hand, the PPPs at
both ASU and SU were clearly popular among
students. At both sites, interview participants

90

noted that the PPPs better responded to what
students desire in housing because of their location, apartment style, and/or amenities. The
PPPs at ASU, in particular, have enjoyed full
occupancy for the entirety of their existence,
which may reflect high student satisfaction. On
the other hand, interview participants shared
instances of student confusion over where to
turn for assistance or answers to questions.
This confusion is partly due to students' lack
of knowledge about how PPPs differ from
traditional residence halls and partly because
of intentional efforts to blur any distinctions
between the private manager and the housing
department. Moreover, at ASU and SU there
was evidence that students paid more to live
in PPP facilities compared to traditional residence halls. The higher prices were a factor
of differential pricing that took into account
facility amenities and the market rate of apartments in the area. Nevertheless, it points to the
possibility that cost savings enjoyed by institutions in working with private sector partners
(i.e., Bernstein, 2010) are not always passed on
to students. The literature on PPPs includes no
direct assessments of cost-savings, and our interview participants did not divulge this information. Thus, an important avenue of future
research is analyzing the cost-savings of PPPs.
Finally, both UFM and ASU detailed plans to
emphasize more traditional residential experiences for students in their first years of college.
These institutions opted to focus on what they
saw as a market advantage in student learning
and development, assessed through student
satisfaction surveys and input during strategic planning sessions, rather than attempting
to compete with private off-campus student
housing through construction of amenities-

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING
The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 2
