Managerialism, Organizational Commitment, and Quality of Job Performances among European University Employees

Abstract

To achieve efficient and effective quality improvement, European universities have gradually adopted organizational strategies, structures, technologies, management instruments, and values that are commonly found in the private business sector. Whereas some studies have shown that such managerialism is beneficial to the quality of job performances of university employees, others have argued that managerialism is largely counterproductive and that it results in lower performances. The latter situation is called a 'managerialism contradiction'. This paper tests two lines of reasoning underlying a potential contradiction governing the relationship between managerialism and job performances, while using university employee survey data from six European countries (Belgium, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, UK). The results tend to support the assumption that managerialism, in these six countries at least, has a positive effect, albeit a modest one, on the quality of performances. The most important conclusion is therefore that there is no managerialism contradiction at work in European universities.

Assessing Cross-National Invariance of the Three-Component Model of Organizational Commitment: A Six-Country Study of European University Faculty

“…We are unable to examine if responders to the survey differed from nonresponders in relevant ways, as we lack nonresponder information. However, comparisons of sex, age, and employment distributions in the responding sample with corresponding population figures revealed no significant differences (see Smeenk et al, 2006). Approximately, two third (65.0%) of the sample were male and the mean age of participants was 38.2 years (SD = 11.8).…”

“…The response rate varied by country, however, ranging from 18% for the United Kingdom to 40% for Belgium. Readers who require further information on the survey design and the research samples are encouraged to consult the documentation by Smeenk, Eisinga, Doorewaard, and Teelken (2006). Listwise deletion of participants with missing data reduced the total sample size to N = 723 faculty members who had complete records on all study variables: Belgium (n = 216), Germany (n = 68), Netherlands (n = 208), United Kingdom (n = 47), Finland (n = 47), and Sweden (n = 137).…”

The impact of managerialism on the strategy work of university middle managers

“…Published research on managerialism in universities since 2000 indicates that managerialism is a well-documented phenomenon (Deem 2000;Winter, Taylor, and Sarros 2000;Preston 2001;Deem 2004;Roberts 2004;Deem and Brehony 2005;Schapper and Mayson 2005;Chaharbagi 2007;Anderson 2008;Kolsaker 2008;Smeenk et al 2009;Meek et al 2010;Pechar 2010;Trowler 2010;Verhoeven 2010;Hyde, Clarke, and Drennan 2013). The thematic search on managerialism in universities provided evidence of a substantial drive towards greater accountability of academics to their paymasters, including performance management, teaching and research quality inspection, performance indicators and target setting (Deem 2004, 107-108).…”

Professional and Organizational Commitment in Universities: from Judgmental to Developmental Performance Management

“…As representative of managerialism (Hood 1991 ;Pollitt 1993 ), such performance management seeks to change the work context in universities in order to make judgments about the quality of academics' output and productivity (Deem 1998 ;Smeenk et al 2009 ). Universities and their academic staff experience external pressure of accountability and a continuous cycle of performance monitoring and quality audits.…”

“…Thus, performance management can only foster organizational commitment if its underlying managerial values do not collide with scholars' professional values. A confl ict may lead to decreasing organizational commitment (Smeenk et al 2006(Smeenk et al , 2009. In this case, performance management can lead to unintended behavior on the part of an employed academic.…”