No disagreement here. Actually, the garbage can theory of organizational behavior explicitly acknowledges the role of dominant principles, ideologies, myths etc. - but argues that they often serve as ex post facto justification of whatever course of action was decided by the current set of power brokers. Thus, corporate managerial decisions - which for the most part serve the interest of the upper management and a select group of high stakeholders - are justified in terms of the dominant ideology of market and profitability.
That is, of course not to say, that the "bottom line" is not the key consideration, but the definition what the bottom line (i.e. how much profit over what time period and at what cost) as well as the best ways of achieving are subject to interpretations and cognitive distortions. A cognitive distortion is a an inclusion ox exclusion of a factor (e.g. environmental effects, labor safety or satisfaction, etc.) from the frame defining the parameters of decision making.
Likewise - "university image" is certainly the overarching principle and myth that ultimately serves to justify the decisions of stakeholders - but what elements constitute that image and how to achieve them is subject to interpretation and cognitive framing. For example, the existence of various parties representing minority or unpopular points of view can be framed as "diversity" and "intellectual debate" that contributes to the "good image" or conversely - as "discord," bickering," and lack of "patriotism" that inhibit learning and thus the "good image." Ditto for administrative control that limits freedom of expression and diversity of views.
Wojtek