SRHE 2016 The European University’s ‘living autonomy’ and the shifting dynamics of its inner life Åse Gornitzka

University autonomy – the formal authority distribution Balance Pendulum 21.11.2018

Institutional autonomy in European universities Starting-point: Governmental expectations concerning the role of universities in socio-economic development have changed – higher education as ‘transversal problem solver’ In order to realise this role more effectively universities have to be reformed (‘modernised’) University autonomy central element in reforms

Questions and white spots How is formal institutional autonomy used and interpreted at various levels? What do university reforms mean for the internal life of universities?

Perspectives underlying university reform: Centralised governance: hierarchy (government control) Negotiated governance: power dynamics (network configurations) Competitive governance: market evolution, that is, diversity / selection / retention (managerial niche identification)

Dominant governmental reform ideology (since early 2000s) Competitive governance mode - Basic assumptions: Autonomous universities will more effectively accommodate multiple stakeholders Strategic organisational actorhood of more autonomous universities leads to “healthy” systemic integration and diversity Major condition: enhanced autonomy has to be used by professional leadership/management Tighten the loose couplings!

University global reform script Structural reform - Focus on formal university autonomy + Autonomous universities’ ability to act more “responsive“ as an integrated organisational actor Strengthened University “responsiveness”, that is, universities’ engagement with societies’ needs

University autonomy Focus in university autonomy studies on changes in formal governance relationship state authorities – universities However, studies on changes in formal governance relationship state authorities – universities cannot explain important aspects of the nature of intra-university change

Understanding university autonomy ‘Living autonomy’: “The ways in which the changes in the formal governance relationship between state authorities and universities are perceived, interpreted, translated, operationalised and used inside each university involved.”

What do university reforms mean for the internal dynamics of universities? Perspectives underlying university reform: Centralized governance: hierarchy (government control) Negotiated governance: power dynamics (network configurations) Competitive governance: market evolution, that is, diversity / selection / retention (managerial niche identification)

Neglected perspective in university reform Institutional perspective: Understanding of historical development essential University actors act in accordance with fairly stable principles, based on rules of appropriate behaviour for specific roles and situations Practices of university autonomy has to be understood also from the roles that universities have forged for themselves and their ‘pact’ with audiences Impacts of reforms depend on how they match with and are absorbed by existing cultures, practices and institutional identities New forms of decision-making will be institutionally filtered, and in case of mismatch, adapted, rejected or decoupled from practice.

Complexity of basic ‘production processes’ in universities Unpredictability of academic work: “The University is a set of activities whose benefits have to be enjoyed after they are accomplished – in Maddox’s words (1964: 159), as ripe fruit can be picket from a tree” Conflicting loyalties to and roles of institution and discipline: “Academic university staff are employed by and work within their institution, but their performance criteria, loyalty and status are determined within their disciplinary setting”

Shifting dynamics of inner life 1) Relationship between management and academia Universities emphasize ‘bottom-line management’: centralisation, standardisation, specialisation, formalisation of administration/administrators (‘one-size-fits-all’ approach) Most academic units and staff tighter coupled to institutional management (‘organisational actorhood’) However: in order to achieve main goal of ‘flagship’ university (being high status leading research intensive university) most productive academic staff exempt from bottom-line management; they can negotiate a looser coupling to institutional management

Shifting dynamics of inner life 2) European version of the ‘prestige economy’ effect? Consequence: In order to be successful as autonomous flagship universities the institutional management has to accept (reactive)/create (proactive) administrative ‘free zones’ for certain academic staff members/groups Prestige hierarchy in external funding (high versus low prestige money) => activities run by administrative versus a prestige competitive logic

Dynamics in university practice: 3) Institutional personnel policy /HRM practices Personnel policy practices more important than strategic plans/strategy documents «Mid-level» leaders/managers have gotten more formal and real authority in personnel affairs More composite interests and considerations But: academic criteria (academic quality and productivity) still more important than ‘relevance’ criteria for the selection of senior academic staff Path dependency limits room to manoeuvre

Autonomy and universities’ inner life – Pendulum effect 21.11.2018

What’s the key to ‘quality of academic inner life’? Reforms adapted to the universities’ realities rather than the other way around ‘Plumbing and poetry’ (James G. March) 21.11.2018