Organisational Change and the Shifting of the Locus of Power
Laurie Lomas
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research,
University College Dublin, 7-10 September 2005
This paper explores how changes in organisational culture and organisational
structures have influenced the distribution of power within universities. In turn, it is
argued these changes in the locus of power have had an effect on the development,
implementation, monitoring and review of universities’ learning and teaching
strategies. In particular, the paper examines the move towards managerialism with
universities using business models of organisation and management. This trend was
first encouraged by the Jarratt Report (1985), further fuelled by the Croham Report
(1987) and given fresh impetus by the Lambert Report (2003). Where there is a
managerialist approach, power tends to be concentrated at the centre of the
organisation. This centralising tendency has been encapsulated in the phrase ‘from
collegial academy to corporate enterprise’ (McNay, 1995).
An examination of the context of higher education shows how universities have had
to adapt to change and respond to the government’s agenda which has included
widening participation, expanding provision at a time when the unit of resource
provided by the government has been falling, finding alternative sources of income
and developing their own systems to assure and enhance quality. Universities that
have commercial acumen have been much more successful in diversifying their
sources of income to generate funds and thereby help enhance their academic position
(Shattock, 2003).
Organisational structures have been adapted or changed to cope with these new
demands and there has been a shift towards greater adherence to a managerialist
paradigm (Randle and Brady, 1997). There have also been changes in organisational
cultures as a consequence. Research employing structured interviews with directors of
educational development centres or institutes of learning and teaching in six
universities illustrates and illuminates how the locus of power in their institutions
influences and shapes the strategies of these units.
Educational developers need to watch carefully to find out where the power lies in
their university in order to know with whom to form strategic alliances and thereby
‘tap in’ to this power (Land, 2004).
1
The Context of Higher Education
Since the latter part of the twentieth century there has been a period of significant
change in the higher education sector in the United Kingdom (Morley, 2003). Henkel
(2000) notes that universities have had to adapt and change in order to respond to the
government’s drive for greater public accountability, efficiency, effectiveness and the
measurement of performance. There are also the ‘3Ms’ of managerialism,
massification and marketisation (Tapper and Palfreyman, 2000). Universities have
had to deal with increased numbers of more diverse students in terms of socioeconomic and educational background (Hativa and Goodyear, 2002) at a time when
the unit of resource is falling (Evans and Nation, 2000). Duke (2002) argues that, with
the ever-expanding government agenda, universities are being expected to achieve far
more but with lower levels of public funds. In addition, universities need to provide
evidence that demonstrates robust and rigorous internal systems are in place to
quality-assure their academic programmes (Gordon, 2002). In terms of teaching and
learning, Higher Education has become much more complex as there is still the need
for universities to develop in their students a deep understanding of complex subject
matter. The widening government agenda has led to the need to work with cohorts of
students from a diversity of backgrounds, pay more attention to teaching, learning and
assessment as well as develop students’ generic and subject skills so that they have
greater employability (Knight and Yorke, 2003).
Responses to the external pressure from government agencies such as the Higher
Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Quality Assurance Agency
(QAA) have been manifested in changes in universities’ organisational culture and
structure. These changes have led, in many cases, to a shift in the locus of power. This
paper focuses on analysing the shift in power and considers its effect on decisionmaking related to learning and teaching. It is easier to identify the locus of power
when it is exercised overtly. Morley (2003) cautions that this is not always the case as
sometimes power is held more subtly and then the locus of power is not as easily
distinguished. The analysis uses organisational structure, managerialism and
organisational culture as a framework. Duke (2002) notes these three elements of the
framework are linked, as a university's organisational structure and management are
key factors in determining its organisational culture.
2
Organisational Structure
Ramsden (2000) argues that organisational structures and cultures are inextricably
interlinked and success in management requires the effective overseeing of the
relationship between structure, process and culture (Duke, 2002). The recent widening
of the economic and social roles expected of universities by government has meant
that there is increasing complexity in terms of their structure (Shattock, 2003). This is
part of the ‘supercomplexity’ (Barnett, 2000) and organisational ambiguity (Alvesson,
2002) that is a major feature of universities in the twenty-first century. Land (2004)
notes universities are large organisations that have complex structures and planning
cycles that are similar to major commercial and industrial companies.
A university’s organisational structures are affected by numerous factors such as
age of the institution, the disciplinary mix, its tradition and size. There are collegial
universities such as Oxford and Cambridge that have very traditional structures.
McNay (2002) argues that they are based departmentally and there is not the high
level of central power as is the case with many modern universities. Collegial values
still flourish and some of the institutions remain loosely coupled, high consensus
organisations despite the general move towards managerialism (Scott, 2003). Becher
and Trowler (2001) see academic departments as the essential building block and
there is the appropriate acculturation of newcomers to the department by existing staff
who make the general values and the norms of behaviour abundantly clear (Shattock,
2003). In terms of teaching and learning initiatives, the power in these collegial
universities resides in the departments. Land (2004) describes some departments as
baronial with their heads fiercely protective of the own staff, students and courses and
competing aggressively with other departmental heads for scarce resources.
D’Andrea and Gosling (2005) note a recent trend of senior management teams in
many universities grouping departments together, partly because of administrative
convenience but also because of the economies of scale that accrue from having larger
units. Such changes to organisational structure serve to reduce the power of the
departments by subverting and submerging their individual identities
Where there is a focus on faculties rather than departments, real power is more
likely to reside with the deans. Shattock (2003) argues that often medical and dental
schools within a university will have a significant degree of autonomy with many
decision-making powers devolved to them. In these circumstances, significant
3
authority is vested with the dean who influences teaching and learning strategies.
There is a consequential reduction in the influence of departments and the centre.
Medical schools have to be able to respond to the needs of the hospital trusts and the
government’s agenda for the National Health Service and their increased autonomy
within the university allows the deans to respond appropriately and effectively.
Clark’s study (1998) looked at central structures in a range of different types of
universities and found that central influence was greater when there was a
‘strengthened central steering core’. Members of this core met regularly and they had
significant decision-making power. There were representatives from numerous
academic departments in this core but they took a holistic institution-wide view rather
than one that was departmental. There was cultural homogeneity and this culture was
transmitted back to the departments. The steering core was regularly refreshed by
changes in personnel who were able to bring in new ideas and new attitudes and
thereby maintain and sustain the influence of the centre. Clark (2004) argues that a
strengthened central core together with four other factors – a diversified income base,
an integrated organisational culture, shared purpose and a ‘reinvigorated heartland’ –
were key prerequisites of the transformative change needed to create an
entrepreneurial university.
A relatively simplified approach to structure has been adopted. However,
universities are becoming larger and more complex organisations. Barnett (2000)
talks of ‘supercomplexity’ with universities and their staff having to struggle to keep
up with all the turmoil and changes and the need for flexible and adaptable structures
in order to cope with these changes. There are a variety of organisational structures
that have been adopted to cope with increasing government demands and the
‘supercomplexity’ of higher education. Traditional collegial, departmental structures
still thrive and retain significant power in the Oxbridge colleges. In medical and
dental schools, the larger unit of the faculty has a high level of power whereas the
strengthened central core has control in the increasing number of entrepreneurial
universities.
Managerialism
Randle and Brady (1997, p.15) define managerialism as ‘a generic package of
management techniques’. It can be summarised as the three ‘E’s of economy,
efficiency and effectiveness (Morley, 1997). (Henkel (2000) links managerialism to
4
government values such as public accountability, the efficient use of resources and the
establishment and measurement of performance. She also considers it was the
Thatcher government in the UK during the 1980s that initiated the commitment to
value-for-money managerialism in the public services and since then there has been a
trend for the specific, well-structured and directed Scientific Management approach of
F.W.Taylor to be applied to intellectual labour as well as manual labour, as was the
case from the early part of the twentieth century (Morley, 2003). In the 1980s, there
were significant changes in state funding, accountability measures, and the increased
influence of the private sector and the perception of politicians of the New Right that
led to a reduction in the economic resources available to universities. Salter and
Tapper (2002) see this as part of the move towards the ‘New Public Management’
system. Consequently, Fordism entered universities, offices and shops in addition to
the factories.
The management and organisation of a university are most influential as effective
stewardship over a period of time can provide the appropriate environment and
climate in which teaching and research can flourish and a university can achieve its
mission and thus be regarded as successful (Shattock, 2003). Universities are
differentiated by their reliance, or otherwise, on direct state funding. Funds can be
obtained from alternative income streams through the generation of research funds or
industrial collaborations (Salter and Tapper, 2002). Clark (2004) identifies some
universities relying not only on government funds for teaching and research but also
they receive ‘third stream’ income such as through research grants from the European
Union and private companies. It is vital to have diversification with funds from all
three sources.
With the need to rely less on direct government funding and because universities
are operating in a fiercely competitive market, finding additional and/or alternative
sources to enhance their income has become imperative. This has led to a rise in
entrepreneurialism. Entrepreneurial universities have broken free from reliance on
the state policies and funding in order to develop flexible, innovative strategies
designed to avoid organisational decline (Clark, 1998; Land, 2004). The Lambert
Report (2003) provides a model for universities to follow in order to develop a more
entrepreneurial culture (HEA, 2004). Salter and Tapper (2002) argue that universities
are now businesses that promote themselves aggressively in order to compete in the
worldwide Higher Education market. This business orientation tends to be more
5
prevalent in the ‘modern’ post-1992 universities because, as former polytechnics, they
were freed from local education authority control in 1988 and then, when they became
modern universities in 1992, they adopted a governance model based on business.
This governance model relies heavily on non-executive directors (Knight, 2002) and,
in these modern universities, the business governors in particular occupy a central role
in the enterprise culture by ‘… inculcating their institutions with enhanced awareness
of competitiveness and the need for excellence in management’ (Bargh, et al., 1996,
p.21). Shattock (2003) says some universities are not able to become entrepreneurial
because they have historically adopted bureaucratic cultures that have become
embedded. This has been a major obstacle to innovation, making it very difficult to
change. Bureaucratic, traditional cultures usually involve the strong positional power
of Heads of Department and a devolved organisational structure which can stifle the
inter-departmental communication and collaboration that are so essential for
developing major commercial projects (Gosling, 2001).
Entrepreneurialism is one form of a managerialist approach in higher education.
There are other forms and managerialism in general has been promoted by a series of
government reports. The ‘steer’ towards managerialism in universities had been
encouraged as early as 1985 by the Jarratt Report that suggested that ViceChancellors should be seen as the Chief Executives and that governing bodies were to
fulfil the function of Boards of Directors. The Report recommended that lay people
should become more involved in the governance of universities (Dearlove, 1998).
Shattock (1991) argues there was also the requirement for academic and financial
plans and full details of how improvements in management processes were to be
made. Additionally, universities were exhorted to control their human and financial
resources more effectively through the introduction of management information
systems designed to monitor expenditure and revenues (Newby, 1999).
Two years after the Jarratt Report, the Croham Report (Croham, 1987)
recommended performance indicators for university teaching and research, finance
and management. Managerialism was not so necessary when universities were wellresourced, élite organisations. However, the pressure to achieve more with less from
the 1980s onwards meant that there was a pressing need for the efficient and effective
governance of universities (Dearlove, 1998). Bergquist (1992) said many university
managers considered that academic staff might favour traditional collegial cultures
6
but they led to a lack of organisational cohesion and purpose and led to a slow
response to external changes.
In 2003, the Lambert Report recommended the form of governance used in
business, with a more executive style and far less use of the tradition committees and
sub-committees. Shattock (2004) is worried that the business approach advocated by
Lambert could be far too homogeneous and would fail to take into account the great
diversity of institutional missions found in the higher education sector. After all, he
argues, under managed and under governed universities such as the University of
Cambridge are most successful in terms of their research, teaching, income
generation, prestige and worldwide profile!
Braun (1999) discerns two different managerialist models:

The efficiency model predominant in Germany, France, Italy and Switzerland;

The client/market model more evident in the UK, the United States of America,
and the Netherlands.
Use of the client/market model in the UK has meant that universities are gradually
adopting centralising management approaches used in the business sector (Chan,
2001) and are increasingly being penetrated by corporate interests (Parker, 2001).
Casey (1995) goes as far as saying that in some universities there is ‘corporate
colonisation’ which involves taking over the hallowed corridors of academia by the
forces of marketisation and corporatism. There is a variety of opinion on how far
universities have embraced the managerialist paradigm (Randle and Brady, 1997). It
does vary greatly from one institution to another and, indeed from one department to
another in the same institution. Barnett (2003) notes that it has been far easier for
academics in disciplines, such as the biosciences, geological, chemical and computer
sciences, to make entrepreneurial use of their knowledge, as it is very saleable. It is
much more difficult for their colleagues from the faculties of humanities and social
sciences to make commercial use of their knowledge through ‘spin offs’ and ‘spin
outs’.
Managerialism is associated with efficiency of decision-making because of the
‘tight coupling’ between the administrative and academic units (Weick, 1988).
However, the empirical work of Allen (2003) suggests that managerialism has
brought with it some major problems as well. Allen’s study is based on research in
twelve universities of various types between 1994 and 1998 and involved semi-
7
structured interviews with senior staff such as Deans, Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Vice
Chancellors and Heads of Finance, Personnel and Planning. Where there was
managerialism, it was found that there were high levels of insecurity, poor morale and
a greater chance that decisions were made and implemented through the use of
persuasive or coercive power. This was because the relatively high level of central
control limited the opportunities for staff to contribute to the decision-making process
and this reduced trust in management thereby increasing the insecurity of staff. In
environments where there was greater collegiality, there was a willingness to be open
and share information and overall inter-personal relationships were far more positive.
These good inter-personal relationships helped create better understanding and greater
consensus when decisions were being made.
The analysis of the growing influence of managerialism points to the location of the
majority of power at the centre of the organisation as it endeavours to reap gains in
efficiency through tighter central control. The strongly departmental University of
Oxford is worried about the increasing strength of central power. When considering
the prospect of performance management being introduced to universities, Terry
Hoad, a fellow of St Peter’s College and a member of the Association of University
Teachers says,
If you have stronger powers of central control, they can start to impinge on
academic freedom, and on the ability of academics to pursue whatever
research they feel is necessary (Tysome, 2005, p.5).
Organisational Culture
Hewton (1986) defines organisational culture as,
… the complex mixture of factors which together give rise to a ‘normal’
way of doing things (p.259).
Organisational culture involves a ‘taken-for granted way of life’ and an identifiable
difference between those on the inside and those on the outside of the organisation or
a particular part of it (Barnett, 1990). Although culture is used regularly to help
understand how organisations act and react, it should be pointed out that culture is not
universally accepted as a helpful analytical tool. Kogan (1999), for example, describes
the concept of organisational culture in higher education as merely ‘intellectual
polyfiller’ that is used in an attempt to explain the inexplicable. It should be noted that
this is a minority view.
8
Dopson and McNay’s (1996) work on discerning a university’s dominant culture
provides a useful framework for looking at the different ways in which policies and
practices, such as those related to teaching and learning, are developed and
implemented in an HEI. They identify four main cultures but any organisational
culture tends not to be pure but rather a blend of all four with, perhaps, one or two of
them dominating (see Table I).
COLLEGIAL
BUREAUCRATIC
cult of individual
rules and regulations
management by consensus
management by committees
person culture
role culture
ENTREPRENEURIAL
CORPORATE
awareness of the market
directorate with
power
management by
meetings
power culture
management by
marketing
task culture
Table I – The four major organisational cultures in universities (Dopson and McNay,
1996)
Cultures vary greatly in the higher education sector with, for example, Oxford and
Cambridge universities having a dominant collegial culture and regarding themselves
principally as a self-governing community of scholars (North Report, 1997) with
significant autonomy in decision-making. Shattock (2003) claims such universities
resent and resist interference from the centre and this has implications for how
decisions on teaching and learning are reached and then how these decisions are
implemented. Organisational culture can influence how a university responds to
pressures from government agencies. For example, Cambridge has been one of the
strongest critics of the Quality Assurance Agency’s (QAA) quality assurance and
enhancement processes. When criticised in a QAA Institutional Audit in 2003, the
university responded through a senior spokesperson saying that it was very
unfortunate that the QAA report did not always convey the extent of the university’s
excellence that is regularly confirmed by external indicators (Baty, 2003).
Modern universities, when they were polytechnics prior to 1992, were centrally
managed with their degrees being conferred through the Council for National
Academic Awards (CNAA). They were familiar with a measure of central control
through the CNAA’s formal Quality Assurance procedures and this became very
much part of their organisational culture when they became universities. Morley
9
(2003) believes there is much less of a collegial culture than was the case in the
traditional pre-1992 universities
McNay (1995) has identified a change in dominant culture in the higher education
sector ‘from the collegial academy to corporate enterprise’ where, even at the
University of Oxford, ‘… the preconditions for good collegial governance have been
undermined’ (Tapper and Palfreyman, 2000, p.143). Sawbridge (1996) argues that
employer-led management initiatives such as appraisal, performance-related pay and
centralised staff development have led to greater standardisation which, in turn, has
threatened the collegial ideal. Generally, quality assurance systems have shifted the
balance of power in to the centre (Kogan and Hanney, 2000) but, with the great
diversity of mission statements in UK universities, the extent of this shift in dominant
culture varies greatly both between and within particular institutions.
Clark’s (1998) research on cultural change is most helpful here. He found that
universities that were successful in changing culture were characterised by a
concerted effort to innovate and to galvanise all the staff of the university; senior
management, academics and administrative staff. There was ‘stronger steering’ from
the centre, with staff responding in a flexible and adaptable manner. Both Salford
University (Powell et al., 2001) and the University of Western Sydney-Nepean (Duke,
2002) made use of Clark’s work when seeking to transform their institutions’
predominantly bureaucratic culture to one that was far more entrepreneurial. Clark’s
strategy can also be used in a similar way to help bring about an organisational culture
more conducive to innovations.
Strength of culture, where there is a strong sense of identity with general support of
institutional progress, can be most influential as many of the universities at the top of
the league tables for research and teaching have strong organisational cultures.
Shattock (2003) considers successful universities are highly competitive both
internally and externally, adaptable to changes in the environment, and willing to take
bold decisions
There can be dangers of over-simplification and over-generalisation when using
organisational culture as part of an analytical framework. Dearlove (2002) warns
against polarisation with the ideal of a collegial golden age at one end of a continuum
and a brave new future involving managerialism at the other end. He argues that it is
possible to blend collegiality and managerialism appropriately to suit academics and
managers. This may be very difficult to achieve but, when it is, there is a balance
10
between the competing demands of departmental academic work and the
entrepreneurial aspirations of the institution. Nevertheless, the analysis of
organisational culture suggests more power is located at the centre of universities as
entrepreneurial and corporate cultures develop as a response to changes in the higher
education market place.
The Centralising Tendency
Having taken into account the criticism of organisational culture as a concept and the
importance of being aware of the dangers of over-generalisation and oversimplification, it can be concluded that the locus of power varies greatly from one
university to another. A university’s structures are affected by numerous factors such
as the age of the institution, the disciplinary mix, its tradition and size. Nevertheless, it
is possible to identify different types of university (Duke, 1992) although distinctions
are becoming blurred due to increasing ‘supercomplexity’, for example. There are
collegial universities such as Oxford and Cambridge that are strongly departmentally
based and so there is very little effective central power as is the case with many
modern universities.
Where there are medical and dental schools, the real power can lie with the deans.
The medical or dental school often has a significant amount of autonomy with many
decision-making powers devolved to it. Influence on teaching and learning is located
with the dean and again there is less central influence on learning and teaching
strategies. However, overall there has been a centralising tendency with the growth of
a managerialist perspective, particularly in modern universities and the increasing
number of entrepreneurial universities (see Figure 1).
POWER
control by centre
◘
dialogical
bureaucratic
11
COMMUNICATION
◘
control by departments
Figure 1: The centralising tendency in universities
Based on Brown, R. (2004)
It is most helpful for staff involved with learning and teaching, as part of
educational development centres or institutes of academic practice, to identify where
the power lies and whether it is largely in the departments, the faculties or the centre
of an HEI. Academic staff involved with the development of learning and teaching
strategies then know where to target their energy and effort and where the battles need
to be won.
Teaching and Learning
Managerialism has impacted on the learning process and Taylor et al. (2002) argue
that the learner is now seen as a customer and as a consumer of learning within a
market place. They call this the ‘commodification of learning’. There is now regular
reference to a knowledge society where there is an emphasis on knowledge that is
predominantly positivist and technical (Jarvis, 2000). There is also a tighter coupling
between general performance by universities and funding (Johnson, 2002) and Barnett
(2004) refers to the notion of performativity with its insistence on demonstrable
outcomes.
In terms of curriculum, there has been a centralising tendency from the 1990s
with the emphasis on learning outcomes, modulisation, credit accumulation and
transferable skills (Land, 2004) and all of these developments can be seen as
exemplars of this commodification of learning that is a consequence of the new
managerialist ethos (Hussey and Smith, 2002). Barnett (2004) identifies a discernable
12
move away from prepositional discipline-based knowledge to more generic
experiential learning and problem-based learning and transferable skills. Power over
the curriculum is gravitating towards central units of an HEI under the control of
members of the senior management team and away from the departments. Educational
developers can often use senior management support when attempting to implement
teaching and learning initiatives because senior management are most keen to fulfil
the government agenda of widening participation and increasing the status of teaching
and are most willing to use Educational Development Units/Centres to achieve these
aims (Land, 2004).
Hussey and Smith (2002) warn of the danger that learning outcomes can be used
as part of a managerialist approach and as a means of management control. They
claim that the commodification of knowledge with the precise definition of learning
outcomes is not good educational practice and the idea that learning outcomes are
clear, precise, uncontestable and objective is misleading. Far greater flexibility in their
interpretation is needed if they are to be of educational value. There are often
unintended learning outcomes that are most desirable and the research of Entwistle et
al. (2000) found that unplanned diversions from the set sessional learning outcomes
can account for over 60% of classroom activity. The teaching and learning process
cannot always be neatly aligned and predicted.
Often cultural capital is linked with membership of a particular ‘academic tribe’
and new staff are initiated into what Becher and Trowler (2001) call ‘folkloric
discourses and conventions’. They argue that convergent, tightly knit academic
communities are more able to pursue and achieve their collective interests, often at the
expense of other groups. They give physics and history as examples of convergent
academic communities where there is a great sense of commonality, a shared
intellectual style and a mutuality of interests. On the other hand, the less tightly knit
divergent communities where there is a greater range of intellectual approaches, such
as chemistry, are less able to achieve their aims.
Methodology
The research was undertaken in six1 universities; three pre-1992 and three modern
(post-1992). The research question sought to explore the views of directors of
educational development units or learning and teaching institutes about where they
consider power in their university is located and how, if at all, this power impacts
13
upon their departments. Each interview lasted at least an hour. The in-depth
interviews were chosen as the research method because it allowed for two-way
communication, with the researcher being able to clarify any questions that were
ambiguous. Also, the interchange between the interviewer and the interviewees meant
that relevant probing, supplementary questions were asked to follow up any
interesting statements made by the interviewees (Cohen et al., 2000). The respondents
were selected at random. Two directors of education development units who were
contacted were not willing to take part in an interview so directors from other
universities were approached until a volunteer was found. Generally, the subject was
considered to be of interest and consequently it was not as difficult as was anticipated
to find three respondents from traditional universities and three from modern
universities.
In order to protect the identity of the six universities yet indicate their type and
general location, pseudonyms were given to them:
1
Regional Modern
Riverside Traditional
Suburban Modern
Suburban Traditional
Urban Modern
Urban Traditional
To date, interviews have been undertaken in five of the six universities.
The qualitative data collected through the interviews was analysed through the use of
the Constant Comparative Method (Strauss and Corbin, 1998) and a number of themes
were discerned. The Constant Comparative Method of analysis combines inductive theme
coding with a simultaneous comparison of all the interview notes. Once meaning has been
ascribed to a particular note in an interview, it is then compared with other interview notes
and, when similarities of meaning are found, they are grouped and coded. If no similar
meaning is found during a comparison, then a new theme category is created. A number of
themes were identified but the following were the key ones relating to the locus of power in
the six universities:
* Mission
* Management of Change Problems
* Where the battles have to be won
14
Qualitative Data from the Interviews
Mission
The educational development units had particular missions. Suburban Traditional
University’s and Regional Modern University’s were to deliver the institution’s learning
and teaching strategy whereas Urban Traditional University’s was to take a role in
promoting teaching and learning and encouraging pedagogic research. In part, this mission
was to be achieved through the provision of nine fellowships during a three-year period.
Riverside Traditional University’s brief was to enhance the policy of teaching and learning
across the institution. Suburban Modern University’s unit was charged with improving the
quality of teaching and learning but, because it is a modern university with very limited
research funding, it had a major role in encouraging research outcome and research skill
development. All of the units were expected to take the lead with national teaching and
learning initiatives.
Management of Change Problems
Many directors raised problems with the effective management of change in their
universities and referred to the constraints caused by a lack of resources and
appropriate staff (Suburban Modern University), lack of recognition of the importance
of excellence in teaching (Urban Traditional University) and resources being
inadequate given all the external demands (Regional Modern University). The
director at Suburban Modern University made the point that it was vital to have an
advocate at senior management level in order to champion the cause of the unit and
support claims for resources. The director at Urban Traditional University said his
unit suffered as it did not have a ‘big hitter’ in the senior management team speaking
up for them. The director at Suburban Modern University also argued that the unit
needed to be seen as academic. The director at Riverside Traditional University was
pleased to report that her unit was seen as academic and this gave her team credibility
with the academic staff with whom they worked. At Suburban Traditional University,
the director considered that the greatest challenge was to translate her unit’s limited
amount of authority into the maximum amount of control. She felt that this could be
achieved by building political alliances with colleagues in various parts of the
university.
15
Where the battles have to be won
At Urban Traditional University the director believed that the battles had to be won
firstly at the centre and then in the faculties and departments. This was all very
difficult and it was fraught with difficulties. There were ‘turf wars’ with units and
departments being very territorial. The director of Suburban Traditional University
agreed saying that the support of the senior management team at the centre was a
prerequisite to going out to the departments and persuade them to review and revise
their teaching and learning approaches. At Suburban Modern University it was noted
that the institution was becoming more corporatist and this is perhaps why power now
more at the centre. Consequently, at the outset the battles needed to be won at the
centre to ensure that the education development unit is adequately resourced. Once
that was achieved, the teaching and learning unit could work with the faculties and
departments.
The director at Regional Modern University did not have to ‘battle’ with the
centre as the unit already had central backing. He thought the battles needed to be
won in the faculties. However, although the Senior Management Team and his unit
put pressure on the faculties to change, very often the deans were not able to make
things happen at grassroots level. Similarly, the director at Riverside Traditional
University thought the unit was well resourced and so it could concentrate on winning
the hearts and minds of academic colleagues in faculties and departments. However,
she said that there was a great range of responses with some colleagues being more
receptive than others.
Conclusion
The literature clearly indicates that the is a tendency for power to move to the centre
of universities as the senior managers embrace a managerialist approach to meet the
challenges of a greater number and diversity of students and the ever-expanding
expectations of government, employers, students and their parents. There has been a
centralising tendency particularly in modern universities and the increasing number of
entrepreneurial universities
The small-scale study reveals some concerns amongst directors of teaching and
learning units about the level of funding. Funding is thought to be inadequate to allow
units to implement effectively the numerous teaching and learning initiatives that
16
government agencies require. Where funding is an issue, units see the centre of the
organisation as the place to target its energies initially.
Units that are fortunate enough to have received adequate funding do not need to
‘battle’ with the centre. They can target the academic staff either at faculty or
departmental level, depending where the power is located in their particular
university.
Wherever the battle is being fought, the skill of the director in deploying subtlety
and perseverance is essential to build coalitions with colleagues in departments,
faculties and at the centre. There are organisational territories with barriers and such
skills help staff from teaching and learning units to penetrate these barriers in order to
work with academic staff and change academic practice to the benefit of the students.
References
ALLEN, D. (2003) Organisational climate and strategic change in higher education:
organisational security. Higher Education, 46, pp 61-92.
ALVESSON, M. (2002)Understanding Organisational Culture, London, Sage
Publications.
BARGH, C., SMITH, P. and SMITH, D. (1996) Governing Universities: Changing
the Culture? Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press.
BARNETT, R. (1990) The Idea of Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE/Open
University Press.
BARNETT, R. (2000) Realizing the University in An Age of Supercomplexity
(Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press).
BARNETT, R. (2003) Beyond All Reason: Living with Ideology in the University.
Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press.
BARNETT, R. (2004) Forward in Macfarlane, B. (2004) Teaching with Integrity,
London, RoutledgeFalmer.
BATY, P. (2003) Watchdog mauls LBS and Cambridge quality. Times Higher
Education Supplement, 24th October, p 56.
BECHER, T. and TROWLER, P. (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories.
Buckingham, Open University Press/SRHE.
BERGQUIST, W. (1992) Four Cultures of the Academy. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
BRAUN, D. (1999) ‘New managerialism and the governance of universities in a
comparative perspective’, in Braun, D. and Merrien, F-X. (eds) Towards a New
Model of Governance for Universities?, pp 239-261, London, Jessica Kingsley.
BROWN, R. (2004) Quality Assurance in Higher Education: The UK Experience
since1992, London, RoutledgeFalmer.
CASEY, C. (1995) Work, Self and Society After Industrialisation. London, Routledge.
CHAN, K. (2001) The difficulties and conflict of constructing a model of Teacher
Education in Higher Education. Higher Education Management, 13(1), pp 93-111.
CLARK, B. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities. Oxford, IAU
Press/Pergamon.
17
CLARK, B. (2004) Sustaining Changes in Universities, Maidenhead, SRHE/Open
University Press.
COHEN, L., MANION, L. and MORRISON, K. (2000) Research Methods in
Education. 5th edition. London, Routledge.
CROHAM, LORD (1987) Review of the University Grants Committee, Cmnd 81.
London: HMSO.
D’ANDREA, V. and GOSLING, D. (2005) Improving Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, Maidenhead, SRHE/Open University Press.
DEARLOVE, J. (1998) The deadly dull issue of university administration, good
governance, managerialism and organising academic work, Higher Education
Policy, vol.11 no.1, pp 59-80.
DEARLOVE J. (2002) A continuing role for academics: The governance of UK
universities in the post-Dearing era, Higher Education Quarterly, 56(3), pp 257275.
DOPSON, S. and McNAY, I. (1996) ‘Organisational Culture’, in Warner, D. and
Palfreyman, D. (eds.). Higher Education Management, Buckingham: Open
University Press.
DUKE, C. (1992) The Learning University: Towards a New Paradigm. Buckingham,
SRHE/Open University Press.
DUKE, C., 2002, Managing the Learning University. Buckingham, SRHE/Open
University Press.
ENTWISTLE, N., SKINNER, D., ENTWISTLE, D. and ORR, S. (2000) Conceptions
and beliefs about ‘Good Teaching’: an integration of contrasting research areas,
Higher Education Research and Development, 19(1), pp 5-26.
EVANS, T. and NATION, D. (2000) Changing University Teaching – Reflections on
Creating Educational Technologies, London, Kogan Page.
GORDON, G. (2002) The roles of leadership and ownership in building an effective
quality culture, Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), pp 97-106.
GOSLING, D. (2001) Educational Development Units in the UK – what are they
doing five years on? International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), pp 7490.
HATIVA, N. and GOODYEAR, P. (2002) Teacher Thinking, Beliefs and Knowledge
in Higher Education, London, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
HENKEL, M. (2000) Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education,
London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMY (HEA) (2004) Graduate Enterprise, HEA
Generic Centre Circular, no.6, June, p.1.
HEWTON, E., 1986, Inside knowledge, in BOYD-BARRETT, O., BUSH, T.,
GOODEY, J., McNAY, I. and PREEDY, M. (eds) Approaches to Post-School
Management: A Reader, London, Paul Chapman Publishing.
HUSSEY, T. and SMITH, P. (2002) The trouble with learning outcomes, Active
Learning in Higher Education, 3(3), pp 220-233.
JACKSON, N.(2002) Growing knowledge about QAA subject benchmarking, Quality
Assurance in Education, 10(3), pp 139-154.
JARRATT, A. (1985) Report of the Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies.
London, CVCP.
JARVIS, P.( 2000) ‘The corporate university’, in FIELD, J. and LEICESTER, M.
(eds) Lifelong Learning: Education Across the Lifespan. London, Routledge
Falmer.
18
JOHNSON, R.(2002) Resources in the management of change in higher education, in
TROWLER, P. (ed.) (2002) Higher Education Policy and Institutional Change:
intentions and outcomes in turbulent environments, Buckingham, SRHE/Open
University Press.
KNIGHT, M.(2002) Governance in Higher Education corporations: a consideration of
the constitution created by the 1992 Act, Higher Education Quarterly, 56(3), pp
276-286.
KNIGHT, P. and YORKE, M. (2003) Assessment, Learning and Employability,
Maidenhead, SRHE/Open University Press.
KOGAN, M. (1999) The culture of academe (review of Maassen, P., Governmental
Steering and the Academic Culture), Minerva, 37, pp 63-74.
KOGAN, M. and HANNEY, S. (2000) Reforming Higher Education. London, Jessica
Kingsley.
LAMBERT, R. (2003) Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration: Final
Report. Norwich: HMSO.
LAND, R. (2004) Educational Development: Discourse, Identity and Practice,
maidenhead, SRHE/Open University Press.
McNAY, I. (1995) ‘From the collegial academy to corporate enterprise: the changing
cultures of universities’, in SCHULLER, T. (ed.). The Changing University,
Buckingham: Open University Press.
McNAY, I. (2002) Governance and decision-making in smaller universities, Higher
Education Quarterly, 56(3), pp 303-315.
McVICAR, M. (1996) ‘Education’ in FARNHAM, D. and HORTON, S. (eds)
Managing the New Public Services, pp 219-241, London: MacMillan.
MORLEY, L. (1997) Change and equity in higher education, British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 18(2), pp 231-242.
MORLEY, L. (2003) Quality and Power in Higher Education. Maidenhead,
SRHE/Open University Press.
NEWBY, P. (1999) Culture and quality in higher education. Higher Education Policy,
no.12, pp 261-275.
NORTH REPORT (1997) Commission of Inquiry. Oxford, University of Oxford
Press.
PARKER, M. (2001) ‘Industrialisation and McDonaldisation’, Paper presented at the
McDonaldisation of Higher Education Conference, Canterbury Christ Church
University College, 7th July.
RAMSDEN, P. (2000) Learning to Lead in Higher Education. London, Routledge.
RANDLE, K. and BRADY, N. (1997) Managerialism and professionalism in the
'Cinderella Service'. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, vol.49 no.1, pp
121-139.
SAWBRIDGE, M. (1996) ‘The politics and organisational complexity of staff
development for academics: a discussion paper’, Occasional Green Paper no.14,
Sheffield, UCofSDA/CVCP.
SALTER, B. and TAPPER, T., (2002) The external pressures on the internal
governance of universities, Higher Education Quarterly, 56(3), pp 245-256.
SCOTT, P. (2003) ‘Learning the Lessons’ (pp 161-177) in WARNER, D. and
PALFREYMAN, D. (eds.) Managing Crisis, Maidenhead, McGraw Hill/Open
University Press.
SHATTOCK, M. (1991) ‘Financial pressures and quality in British Universities’, in
BERDAHL, R., MOODIE, G. and SPITZBERG, I. (eds.). Quality and Access in
Higher Education, Buckingham: Open University Press.
19
SHATTOCK, M. (2003) Managing Successful Universities. Maidenhead,
SRHE/Open University Press.
SHATTOCK (2004) ‘Do we need Lambert’s Code of practice? If so, what should it
contain?’ Paper presented at the Economic and Social Research Council/Society for
Research in Higher Education Research Seminar, Institute of Education, London,
5th February.
STRAUSS, A. and CORBIN, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques
and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd Edition. London, Sage.
TAPPER, T. and PALFREYMAN, D. (2000) Oxford and the Decline of the
Collegiate Tradition. London, Woburn Press.
TAYLOR, R., BARR, J. and STEELE, T.(2002) For a Radical Higher Education:
After Postmodernism. Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press.
TYSOME, T. (2005) ‘Pay plan will stifle academic freedom’, Times Higher
Education Supplement, 11th March, p.5.
WEICK, K. (1988) ‘Educational organisations as loosely coupled systems’, in
WESTOBY, A. (ed.). Culture and Power in Educational Organisations,
Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press.
20