Factors affecting strategic change in higher education

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to identify those factors that key actors in university governance hold as to be important in realizing strategic change within their institutions. Design/methodology/approach -Key decision-makers in 26 European universities were surveyed on their views on which factors bring about strategic change. The results were interpreted using a theoretical framework emphasizing organizational archetypes and their development. Findings -The findings indicated that strategic changes in universities were perceived as highly dependent on leadership, decision-making procedures, communication and evaluation. However, some differences between the universities in the sample can be identified, supporting indicating the relevance of using organizational archetypes as an analytical tools for observing change within the higher education sector. Originality/value -The study links organizational level developments on strategic management to macro-level change within the European higher education landscape, and provides new insights intoon the debate on convergence and differentiation in organizational fields.

Third mission activities: university managers' perceptions on existing barriers

“…The existing literature points out, that the realization of organizational change at universities is a challenging process for various reasons (Stensaker et al 2014).…”

The determinants of university strategic positioning: a reappraisal of the organisation

“…In accordance with this theoretical explanation, universities' behaviour significantly involves established practices and shared cultural values, more than the rational calculation of consequences from the top management. For instance, several empirical studies highlight how concepts like 'shared-governance' and 'academic involvement' are core values and rule of action in universities, and therefore managerial rationality cannot be expressed in the way of a top-down and 'close' leadership either (Clark 1998;Stensaker and Vabø 2013;Laudel and Weyer 2014;Stensaker et al 2014).…”

Changing missions? How the strategic plans of research-intensive universities in Northern Europe and North America balance competing identities

“…Universities pursuing this strategy might, for example, find ways to leverage outreach or public engagement activities to service both their public mission and generate additional revenues in a new unit that fuses public engagement and private entrepreneurship. This strategy may work well where the dichotomy between private and public good is exaggerated, so that these dimensions may live side by side and increase organizational coherence (Krücken andMeier 2006, Pinheiro andStensaker 2014).…”

“…Greater emphasis on private rather than public goods and benefits can be found in the texts and images that public universities use to communicate about themselves (Morphew and Hartley 2006;Saichaie and Morphew 2014). In Europe, governance reforms have also occurred and existing research analyzing how universities have chosen to exercise their independence indicates that it is possible to identify a more ´managerial´ university emerging through stronger internal hierarchical governance and more time and energy devoted to handling external accountability claims and strengthen their external profile (File et al 2006;Fumasoli and Lepori 2011;Frølich et al 2013, Stensaker andBenner 2013;Stensaker et al 2014;Fumasoli et al 2015).…”