The “Dean’s Squeeze” revisited: a contextual approach

Abstract

Purpose -To develop a conceptual framework for identifying the primary tensions that business school deans encounter when moving between different university contexts. Design/methodology/approach -The paper is part of a larger research project on the development of business schools. This conceptual paper builds on our studies and personal experiences of business schools and their management in a number of different countries, primarily in Europe, North America, Asia, and the Middle East. Findings -The present study argues that as a response to the increasing corporatization of higher education, the university sector has fragmented into at least three identifiable contexts: the traditional research university, the academic capitalist university, and the corporate university. We conclude that the match between a dean's worldview and the university context ultimately determines the appropriateness, survival and success of deanship. Practical implications -The paper provides practical suggestions for managing business schools. Given that "good" leadership is always context dependent, no single deanship would fit for all business schools. As an outcome, both deans and the selection committees making decisions regarding their recruitment should be sensitive to their worldviews originating from the university contexts in which they previously worked. Originality/value -Emphasizing a contextual approach to business school leadership, this paper proposes a new typology of deanship situations.

Emergence and early institutionalization of competition in higher education: evidence from Finnish business schools

“…For the competitive loop to go through a full cycle, third-party initiatives and incentives need to be responded to by HEIs' strategic management. Our study, as well as previous studies, has indicated that business schools are inherently sensitive to all kinds of endogenous and exogenous "nudges" of competition that can emerge from individuals (e.g., competitive deans; Alajoutsijärvi & Kettunen 2016;Lejeune & Vas, 2014;Parker, 2018), individual departments, or changes in resource allocation. There are at least two obvious reasons for this sensitivity to competitive nudges.…”

Sandwiched: Exploring role and identity of middle managers in the genuine middle

“…Still, we find it more likely that the umbrella protector positioning is a way for middle managers to handle the complicated middle-levelness in which the they are in crossfire (Alajoutsijärvi and Kettunen, 2016;Gallos, 2002;Sims, 2003). To navigate this complicated middle, we suggest they need a combination of stories and acts to organise meaning and direction for their interpretations and enactments of identity and role.…”

“…The context of HE is often described as particularly complex in terms of structure , as it has to address different markets and regulations and employ staff with short- and long-term contracts, and culture characterized by a variety of academic and corporate-informed cultures of performance, norms and values (Alajoutsijärvi and Kettunen, 2016; Bolden et al, 2009; Middlehurst et al, 2009). Intensified managerialism (Alvesson and Spicer, 2016; Keenoy, 2005; Parker and Jary, 1995; Prichard and Willmott, 1997) has led to colliding pressures and tensions for academic leaders who are caught in between opposing expectations, values and worldviews (Alajoutsijärvi and Kettunen, 2016; Gallos, 2002; Kallio et al, 2016).…”

At the temporary-permanent interface: Overcoming knowledge boundaries with boundary objects

“…The success of any accreditation endeavor is highly dependent on the business school faculty's knowledge and engagement in the project (AACSB, 2020), as Nordic accreditation project managers cannot "force" the faculty members of their institutions to educate themselves or participate in the project. Instead, they need to use other, more subtle and dialogic means to interact with the various disciplines and to overcome their longstanding and often political grievances to obtain collaboration and coherence (Alvesson & Spicer, 2016;Alajoutsijärvi & Kettunen, 2016;Huzzard, Benner & Kärreman, 2017). Therefore, the way in which projects teams use boundary objects during the one-off process of accreditation becomes pertinent.…”