Reframing the university as an emergent organisation: implications for strategic management and leadership in higher education

Abstract

For the most part, the organisational forms that are currently being adopted by higher education institutions are grounded in the traditional corporate models of organisation that take a rational approach to organisational design and change management. Underlying this account is an assumption of organisational autonomy and the capacity of designated leaders to direct change processes to better align their institutions with societal demands or goals. However, a case is now being made for the consideration of alternative organisational theories or models that offer a different perception on the sources and patterns of organisational change in higher education. These theories perceive organisations more as emergent entities in which change is continuous, often unpredictable and arising mainly from local interactions. The paper surveys the implications that acceptance of the alternative paradigm might have for strategising and change leadership in higher education institutions. It suggests that the accommodation of these alterative paradigms of institutional development in higher education may itself be an emergent process and considers how future research and policy formulation relating to strategic management and leadership might facilitate positive outcomes in that process.

Employees’ attitudes toward change with Lean Higher Education in Moroccan public universities

“…So a Lean initiative in higher education requires an evaluation of processes to rework them to deliver the most value to customers (Comm and Mathaisel, 2005). HEIs possess now a degree of sovereignty and rationality because they are “organizational actors,” that were absent in the past (Doyle and Brady, 2018). Sovereignty gives to HEIs a distinct identity and freedom to choose the change project that is in line with their strategy.…”

Variedades de capitalismo académico: Un marco conceptual de análisis

“…Particular importancia adquiere aquí el análisis comparado del campo organizacional de sistemas nacionales de ES (Slaughter, 2001;Teichler, 2014); campo que, como una esfera de acción y valores, posee su propia lógica, actores protagónicos, memoria y leyendas institucionales. Las universidades operan ahí como comunidades de saberes a la vez que como empresas de conocimiento, con una participación directiva creciente de profesionales y técnicos especializados que ejercen funciones de conducción, planeación, gerenciamiento, administración, análisis y evaluación de procesos institucionales claves como la vinculación con el medio externo, el monitoreo de la competencia en los mercados y el seguimiento de las políticas y regulaciones emanadas del Estado nación/gobierno (Donina & Paleari, 2019;Doyle & Brady, 2018). Además, cabe considerar que cada campo organizacional de base nacional se halla en constante cambio y adaptación a los nuevos contextos y tendencias de transformación que afectan a los sistemas: su diferenciación, masificación, diversificación, estratificación, tecnificación y, en general, su racionalización en todas las dimensiones.…”

The Process of Change from Chairs to Departments at Spanish Universities

“…However, this type of organization, now fully incorporated into universities and accepted as something inherent to them -although its running revealed itself as deficient in some cases, questionable in others (Doyle & Brady, 2018) and, ,there have even been phenomena of fusion of departments motivated basically by the situation of economic crisis in recent years -would be accepted reluctantly by the different heads of chairs. That novelty would lead to conflicts and a long and slow process of full approval.…”