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

Abstract

In an attempt to understand the effects of managerialism on university managers in a developing country, we set out to gather rich data on the strategy work of middle managers through a single case study at a South African university. Managerialism has the potential to solve inefficiencies in university systems and processes, as it could help to simplify the complex university management environment. Yet, our findings show that middle managers at the chosen institution are constrained by the effects of managerialism. Managerialism has resulted in a tyranny of bureaucracy which translates into disempowered middle managers, a culture of conformance over collegiality, control at the cost of innovation and experimentation and an over-articulation of strategy which devalues the strategy. To cope with the identified negative effects of managerialism, middle managers create their own systems outside the bureaucracy and provide more support to peers and subordinates.

Analysing the Importance-Competence Gap of Distance Educators With the Increased Utilisation of Online Learning Strategies in a Developing World Context

“…Schouteden, Verburgh and Elen (2016) stress the importance of informing teaching through research activities. Davis, Jansen van Rensburg, and Venter (2016) note the drive towards holding faculty accountable for both the quality of research, and the quality of teaching and learning via the use of integrated objectives and performance management. However, a general paucity of insight on how to integrate research findings into teaching hampers the process (Davis et al, 2016).…”

The practice turn within strategy: Competitive intelligence as integrating practice

“…Traditional strategy research focused on the role of top managers and in particular the CEO in making strategic decisions (Ansoff 1965). However, the focus of strategy as practice is on the middle manager as the critical link between operational staff and managerial staff -the latter typically makes the strategic decisions and the former implements the strategies (Davis et al 2014b;Whittington 2006). This embeddedness in the structure of organisations and the body of research and education as a societal practice emphasises the importance of competitive intelligence within strategy (Whittington 2006), also from a practical point of view.…”

Supporting Academic Middle Managers in Higher Education: Do We Care?

“…Is such training being used by senior managers as a controlling mechanism -to instil and maintain a top down managerial culture, aligning academic middle managers to university processes and ensuring that organisational control is not lost or diluted at departmental level -a practice in line with New Public Management ideology and one which can perpetuate an "us versus them" culture, lead to an erosion of collegiality (Davis et al 2014), and thus potentially a more divided profession (Deem and Brehony 2005) However, these practices had tended to be set up at the insistence of the incoming department head themselves.…”