Strategic Bureaucracy: The Convergence of Bureaucratic and Strategic Management Logics in the Organizational Restructuring of Universities
Saved in:
| Title: | Strategic Bureaucracy: The Convergence of Bureaucratic and Strategic Management Logics in the Organizational Restructuring of Universities |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Peter Woelert (ORCID |
| Source: | Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy. 2025 63(1):1-21. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 21 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Strategic Planning, School Restructuring, Administrative Organization, Universities, Logical Thinking, Governance, Articulation (Education) |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11024-024-09535-1 |
| ISSN: | 0026-4695 1573-1871 |
| Abstract: | Over recent decades, one can identify two key narratives associated with changes in university organization and governance. The first narrative focuses on the administrative consequences of an off-loading state relinquishing direct control over some of universities' internal operations while at the same time driving bureaucratization at the institutional level. The second narrative focuses on the emergence of an increasingly competitive and uncertain environment driving universities to transform into strategically managed organizations. In this paper, we argue that while the organizational logics associated with these two narratives imply differently accentuated forms of legitimation, they converge and combine with respect to key dimensions of universities' internal organizing, ultimately giving rise to a hybrid form of organizational governance we label 'strategic bureaucracy'. Such strategic bureaucracy, we illustrate, is characterized by a strong focus on strategic leadership and the associated management techniques while also intensifying organizational features traditionally associated with bureaucratic governance such as formalization and hierarchical authority. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1461631 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwH-nK_3e-1iAifIqO3G8ZdhAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIt8eCCaz6OqRcZwHgIBEICBm7cVIxqNBv9TlEfpGqpaf13vIpKpUWOUK59vI8_7ihxHNR9FHQXDJT8m7Jf4-PEBghZ8Y3aTqx-ywudDgrRmzWC4rgu9yGmjbkT0Bpi8RRPRDB3UFS1IslzNCfsWg0XRTOiZ9ZKTp5v7OfxnCvwQfmoP_DppF_4XfeWG8XZ2R6qG1pBuHynns47B8-wWO38y5aX5qRQboh77R902 Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0183435071;gr901mar.25;2025Mar06.04:22;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183435071-1">Strategic Bureaucracy: The Convergence of Bureaucratic and Strategic Management Logics in the Organizational Restructuring of Universities </title> <p>Over recent decades, one can identify two key narratives associated with changes in university organization and governance. The first narrative focuses on the administrative consequences of an off-loading state relinquishing direct control over some of universities' internal operations while at the same time driving bureaucratization at the institutional level. The second narrative focuses on the emergence of an increasingly competitive and uncertain environment driving universities to transform into strategically managed organizations. In this paper, we argue that while the organizational logics associated with these two narratives imply differently accentuated forms of legitimation, they converge and combine with respect to key dimensions of universities' internal organizing, ultimately giving rise to a hybrid form of organizational governance we label 'strategic bureaucracy'. Such strategic bureaucracy, we illustrate, is characterized by a strong focus on strategic leadership and the associated management techniques while also intensifying organizational features traditionally associated with bureaucratic governance such as formalization and hierarchical authority.</p> <p>Keywords: Bureaucratization; Formalization; Competition; Institutional autonomy; Organizational change; Public sector reform; Higher education policy</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Over recent decades, the organizational dimensions of universities have taken a center stage in analyses of higher education policy reform and governance change (e.g., Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref1">4</reflink>]; Fumasoli and Stensaker [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref2">23</reflink>]; Seeber et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref3">48</reflink>]). Research from different parts of the world has documented a changing university where key organizational trends include greater centralization and formalization, more external and internal reporting and accountability pressures, and the growth of an increasingly professionalized and managerial administrative apparatus within universities (e.g., Christensen [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref4">11</reflink>]; Croucher and Woelert [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref5">13</reflink>]; Ramirez and Christensen [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref6">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Across the literature examining the changing organizational governance of universities, one can identify two related but differently accentuated narratives concerning the observed changes. The first narrative is broadly associated with analyses of public sector reform along New Public Management (NPM) lines and the associated policy and governance changes (Ferlie et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref7">19</reflink>]). Key elements in this narrative are, first, the state's off-loading of responsibilities for organizational governance to universities and increases in universities' institutional autonomy in operational matters, and second, increases in universities' accountability to government authorities and other key stakeholders setting the broader policy goals and objectives (e.g., Capano [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref8">10</reflink>]; Christensen [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref9">11</reflink>]; Enders, de Boer, and Weyer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref10">17</reflink>]). This shift towards increased institutional autonomy and accountability entails new and expanded administrative responsibilities and demands that, so the narrative goes, compel universities to increasingly acquire the characteristics of formalized, centralized, and hierarchical organizations (Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]; Musselin [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref12">43</reflink>]). In view of these apparent changes, universities thus can be said to have undergone an organizational process of <emph>bureaucratization</emph>.</p> <p>The second narrative is related to the first in that it also sees the environment as the core driver of change within universities. However, in contrast to linking organizational change in the university directly to public sector reform and 'steering at a distance', this narrative foregrounds the emergence of dynamic forms of institutional competition including those associated with markets or quasi-markets (see Jungblut and Vukasovic [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]) as a key driver of change. Intensifying institutional competition for domestic and international students and university ranking positions (Brankovic [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>]; Espeland and Sauder [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]), the narrative then goes, has made it imperative for universities to become comprehensively managed organizations capable of strategic decision-making and swift internal restructuring to effectively identify and realize opportunities offered by their environment (see, e.g., Krücken and Meier [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref16">34</reflink>]; Thoenig and Paradeise [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref17">56</reflink>]). In short, according to this narrative, an increasingly competitive and uncertain environment has driven universities to transform into <emph>strategically managed</emph> organizations.</p> <p>Despite the ongoing centrality of these two narratives to accounts of university reform and change, the question of how specifically the two associated organizational logics – bureaucratic and strategic – interrelate in the restructuring of universities has received little attention. This is in parts because the strategic organizational logic, on a more general level, has been frequently yet simplistically painted as implying a radical departure from bureaucratic forms and processes (see on this point, e.g., Hoggett [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref18">27</reflink>]; Wright, Sturdy and Wylie [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref19">67</reflink>]). Applied to the domain of universities, such 'post-bureaucratic' notion of strategic management thus provides little scope to account for any common ground or convergence between the two logics in processes of organizational restructuring and change.</p> <p>This is an issue also since more recent empirical studies from around the world appear to present a mixed picture as to how universities are changing as organizations (see, e.g., Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref20">5</reflink>]; Ramirez and Christensen 2013; Seeber et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref21">48</reflink>]). There is, for example, a range of evidence suggesting that universities have become more tightly integrated and managed as organizations (Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>], Seeber et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref23">48</reflink>]). Yet there are also signs of ongoing fragmentation in university organization due to the successive addition of new administrative layers that ultimately appear to have expanded the bureaucratic dimensions of university life (Maassen and Stensaker [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref24">36</reflink>], Ramirez and Christensen [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref25">46</reflink>]; Woelert [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref26">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this conceptual paper, we argue that bureaucratic and strategic logics, despite their different emphases and points of departure, converge and combine with respect to key dimensions of universities' internal governance and organizing, ultimately giving rise to a hybrid form of organizational governance we refer to as 'strategic bureaucracy'. We suggest that the manifestation of strategic bureaucracy within universities is inter alia characterized by a strong focus on strategic leadership and the associated management techniques alongside intensification of organizational features and dimensions traditionally associated with bureaucratic governance such as formalization and hierarchical authority.</p> <p>The key research questions guiding our discussion are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the key characteristics of bureaucratic and strategic logics in a university setting?</item> <p></p> <item> How are the bureaucratic and strategic organizational logics articulating within universities?</item> <p></p> <item> What are some of the key organizational implications arising from this articulation between both logics?</item> </ulist> <p>Our use of the notion of organizational logic throughout this paper is motivated by the ambition to conceptualize (a) distinctive forms or types of collective rationality that frame, legitimize, and guide organizational activities; and (b) the relationships between these forms. There are affinities to the institutional logics conception that has become widely popular in the social sciences over recent decades, and which assumes that typically there are several such forms, or logics, to be found and interacting within organizations, and which further posits that understanding of the articulation of such different forms is key to understanding organizational change also (Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref27">57</reflink>]). In contrast to the institutional logics perspective and its ambition to integrate macro-, meso-, and micro-levels of analysis (see Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref28">57</reflink>]), our analyses remain, however, more modestly focused on the organizational level and, in particular, do not attempt to integrate individual or micro-level dimensions or foundations.</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-3">The Bureaucratic and the Strategic Logic in the University Sector: Key Characteristics</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183435071-4">The Bureaucratic Logic</hd> <p>The use of the concept of bureaucracy is multifaceted and often inconsistent across the social sciences, referring either to specific forms of organizing and governing, to specialized staff roles in large formal organizations, or to a specific administering body, usually associated with government (see Monteiro and Adler [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref29">42</reflink>], 429). Furthermore, the term is also frequently employed, in more polemical fashion, to refer to administrative phenomena perceived to be as burdensome and obstructive, such as in bureaucratic 'red tape' (see Bozeman and Scott [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>]). In the following, we focus primarily on delineating the key characteristics associated with bureaucracy as a specific form of organizational governance.</p> <p>The logical point of departure for interrogating such conception is Max Weber's classic and highly influential account of bureaucracy presented in his <emph>Economy and Society</emph> (1978). According to Weber, in the ideal-typical bureaucratic organization, administrative activities are rationally conducted by specialized staff in alignment with a stable set of impersonal and written rules and which clearly define administrative roles and responsibilities (formalization), there is a hierarchical organization of authority as a 'clearly established system of super- and subordination' (Weber [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref31">60</reflink>], 957), recruitment of staff is based on formal qualifications and technical-administrative expertise, and administrative operations are based upon effective use of devices such as files guaranteeing stability and regularity in organizational processes (see Vismann [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref32">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>More recent conceptualizations of bureaucracy as a form of organization generally invoke the key principles and characteristics already identified in Weber's account, although there are also some, often implicit, variations. For example, bureaucracy's hierarchical organization has frequently become identified with centralized forms of decision-making, even though this cannot be directly derived from Weber's account (Mansfield [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref33">37</reflink>]). Similarly, formalization has become more overtly associated with a bureaucratic standardization of procedures potentially implying, at the organizational level, greater efficiency yet also increased inflexibility and conformity (Mintzberg [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref34">41</reflink>]; Wright, Sturdy and Wylie [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref35">67</reflink>]; see also Kallinikos [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref36">30</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>] Finally, more recent accounts tend to identify bureaucratic forms with public sector organizations primarily, whereas Weber explicitly saw bureaucratic principles at play both in public and private sectors (1978, 956-7).</p> <p>Formalization, hierarchical authority and centralized decision-making, and standardization are also reoccurring themes in the more recent literature exploring the changing role and manifestation of bureaucracy in higher education over recent decades (e.g., Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref38">4</reflink>]; Kallio, Kallio, and Blomberg [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref39">31</reflink>]). One of the key developments identified throughout this literature is the weakening of professional bureaucratic elements at universities as a result of a consolidation of administrative arrangements emphasizing inter alia audit procedures, hierarchical control, and formal accountability (see, e.g., Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref40">4</reflink>]; Kallio, Kallio, and Blomberg [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref41">31</reflink>]). Professional bureaucracies are understood to be characterized by administrative arrangements in which traditional bureaucratic elements exist alongside spheres of professional self-control and where bureaucratic arrangements are meant to support but not interfere with professionals' work activities (e.g., Blau [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref42">3</reflink>]; Mintzberg [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref43">41</reflink>]). As such, professional bureaucracies are held to exhibit high levels of professional autonomy, a weak central executive, and low levels of organizational standardization (Mintzberg [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref44">41</reflink>]; Weick [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref45">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the literature considering the bureaucratic restructuring of universities, the diminishing of professional bureaucracy within universities is commonly considered against the backdrop of NPM policy changes to the steering role of the state (Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref46">5</reflink>]). Historically, modern universities have almost universally evolved as bureaucratic organizations in the sense that their establishment usually presupposes formal recognition by relevant government authorities and that their core functions are defined by national or state law (see Schneijderberg [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref47">47</reflink>]). While this generally continues to be the case, recent decades have seen incisive changes to the bureaucratic governance of universities around the world. In a variety of national contexts in which NPM agendas have been influential, including much of the Anglosphere and Continental Europe as well as a range of countries from the Asia-Pacific region, higher education policy reforms have, to varying degrees, sought to reduce the state's direct steering of universities' internal affairs while increasing universities' formal autonomy over how to conduct their own operations (see Christensen [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref48">11</reflink>]; Enders, de Boer, and Weyer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref49">17</reflink>]). In lieu of comprehensive formal regulation of universities' internal operations, 'arms-length' governance instruments such as accountability mechanisms linked to national standards or a range of output-based funding incentives have become the state's key means for exercising steering control over universities' activities, with the state moreover setting the relevant performance targets and objectives (Enders, de Boer, and Weyer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref50">17</reflink>]; Frølich [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref51">21</reflink>]; Guthrie and Neumann [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref52">26</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>]</p> <p>There is a range of evidence suggesting that these shifts in system-level governance have themselves been accompanied by a proliferation of bureaucratic elements within universities. This appears to apply in particular to the key principles of hierarchical authority, formalization, and standardization that, research suggests, have become key foci of organizational transformation in universities around the world over recent decades (Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref54">5</reflink>]; see also the section 'The articulation of bureaucratic and strategic logic in universities'). There is considerable evidence, for example, that system-level governance changes in many European countries have generally led to a strengthening of the roles of hierarchical authority and formal rule systems within universities, although there appears to be some variation depending inter alia on institutional path dependencies and the extent of system-level pressures in different national settings (Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref55">4</reflink>]; Seeber et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref56">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>At the level of individual universities, this bureaucratization process has occurred despite that strengthening universities' institutional autonomy was, ultimately, meant to overcome some of the perceived deficiencies associated with the state's direct bureaucratic control of universities and their operations. These deficiencies have been argued to include inflexible and overly centralized governance arrangements restricting the scope for organizational innovation and, perhaps as the most prominent theme, a lack of an incentive for universities to become <emph>strategically</emph> acting organizations seeking competitive advantages through acquiring distinctive organizational forms, capacities, and missions (see Fumasoli and Huisman [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref57">23</reflink>]; Krücken and Meier [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref58">34</reflink>]). This leads us to the discussion of characteristics of the strategic organizational logic gaining traction within universities around the world over recent decades.</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-5">The Strategic Logic</hd> <p>The strategic organizational logic derives its legitimacy in the main from the emergence of an environment where universities have to increasingly compete for visibility, prestige, and funding, both nationally and internationally. Such an increasingly competitive environment has been a relatively new affair for those many universities situated in national contexts that traditionally allowed for relatively little institutional competition, whereas in a few places like the United States, it has long been the norm (see Krücken and Meier [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref59">34</reflink>]). Almost everywhere, however, drivers and forms of competition for universities have multiplied and become more complex over recent times. These days, universities are typically compelled to actively participate in multiple competitions simultaneously (Krücken [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref60">33</reflink>]). These may include, for example, state-coordinated research excellence or project funding initiatives, various university ranking exercises conducted by private corporations, and last not least, various manifestations of markets or quasi-markets (see Jungblut and Vukasovic [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref61">29</reflink>]), with the international student market perhaps being the most salient example.</p> <p>The uncertainties but also opportunities arising from these more competitive and constantly evolving circumstances, the strategic logic argues, require the university to acquire the characteristics of an organization that has the capacity to effectively make strategic decisions and act accordingly in a concerted manner (Teece [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref62">54</reflink>]). In particular, turning universities into strategically capable organizational actors is meant to enable them to effectively target niches to gain competitive advantages (see Krücken and Meier [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref63">34</reflink>]), thus ideally also increasing diversity in terms of institutional forms to be found within a higher education system (see Fumasoli and Huisman [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref64">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to the strategic logic, there are several key organizational transformations that need to occur to enable the university to fulfil its role as a strategic organizational actor. The most important change identified concerns the role of universities' institutional leadership (see Teece [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref65">54</reflink>]). According to the strategic logic, universities require a strong 'strategic apex' (Mintzberg [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref66">41</reflink>]) that has considerable strategic decision-making capacities and the authority and power to enforce the strategic direction decided upon across the entire university (see Krücken and Meier [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref67">34</reflink>]). Within the confines of the strategic logic, the strategic apex is usually identified with the university's central executive and whose role and responsibilities tend to be equated to those of the senior executive of a corporate organization. This entails the view that universities' executive not only ought to have the authority to set organization-wide strategic priorities but also should be held accountable for the universities' overall results, financial or otherwise (see Ferlie and Ongaro [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref68">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>For the strategic logic, the realization of effective strategic leadership within the university sector thus requires better alignment of organizational activities, processes, and structures to be found within the university with overarching organizational goals (see Teece [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref69">54</reflink>]). One key avenue for creating such alignment, the strategic logic argues, is the transformation of universities from 'loosely coupled systems' into organizations in which the various organizational units and their activities are effectively integrated both vertically and horizontally (Krücken and Meier [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref70">34</reflink>]; Stensaker and Fumasoli [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref71">50</reflink>]). 'Loosely coupled systems' are considered to be characterized by high levels of autonomy for and weak linkages between the various parts or elements making up an organization (Weick [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref72">61</reflink>]) and, in the specific case of universities, have been inter alia associated with low levels of intra-organizational formalization and centralization (Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref73">5</reflink>]) and a lack of strong internal governance (Krücken and Meier [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref74">34</reflink>]; Thoenig and Paradeise [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref75">56</reflink>]). From the point of view of the strategic logic, all these organizational features constitute impediments on the way towards realizing the vision of the university becoming one integrated, strategically acting organization.</p> <p>On an operational level, the strategic logic considers the aforementioned strengthening of universities' central executive combined with the establishment of a comprehensive system of top-down management control built around clearly articulated performance indicators and incentives as key steps towards achieving such integration on the ground (see Teece [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref76">54</reflink>]). One prominent instrument in this regard are line management arrangements that organize performance-based accountability relationships among university staff in a linear and top-down manner. Importantly, this extends to those domains of university life that were previously left largely to professional self-control, such as teaching and research activities.</p> <p>In the literature, the adoption of such techniques of management control within universities and the underlying tenets are often summarized under the rubric of 'managerialism' (see Shepherd [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref77">49</reflink>]). One such core tenet is the belief that comprehensive management control of performances, and the associated incentives, effectively entice everyone within the university, from organizational units such as faculties down to the level of individual staff, to strive towards the same overarching organizational goals. This is held to be particularly effective if facilitating performance-based competition internally while at the same time providing managers working at various organizational levels with the operational autonomy over how to mobilize their staff and resources to meet the organizational objectives prescribed by the executive (see Pollitt [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref78">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>The strategic logic's shifting of focus of control on organizational or individual performances has, ultimately, at least two additional and major implications. First, it elevates the steering role of what one in reference to Mintzberg ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref79">41</reflink>]) may refer to as the 'technostructure' comprising those staff and infrastructure being devoted to measuring and monitoring the performances of key actors across the university. This is particularly the case where performance measures are used to organize internal competition between faculties, departments, or individuals. Second, the focus on performances and competition in the internal steering of universities implies an increasing standardization of measures and procedures being used to establish, for example, the quality of research activities undertaken in various disciplines (see Woelert [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref80">63</reflink>]). As such, technostructure and standardization can be deemed mutually reinforcing – the stronger the reliance on the technostructure, the more standardization within an organization, and vice versa (Mintzberg [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref81">41</reflink>], 30).</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-6">The Articulation of Bureaucratic and Strategic Logic in Universities</hd> <p>Having outlined the constitution of each of bureaucratic and strategic logic, this section explores how the two logics and their defining organizational characteristics or features more specifically – <emph>formalization</emph>, <emph>standardization</emph> and <emph>hierarchical authority</emph> for the bureaucratic logic and <emph>strategic leadership</emph>, <emph>organizational integration</emph>, and <emph>managerialism</emph> for the strategic logic – articulate within a university setting. We proceed by discussing each of these characteristics in turn, reflecting on specific ways they manifest within and, potentially, across bureaucratic and strategic logics.</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-7">Formalization</hd> <p>There is ample research illustrating that over recent decades, the number and scope of formalized scripts, routines, and rules to be found within universities has increased considerably (Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori 2015; Ramirez and Christensen [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref82">46</reflink>]; Whitley [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref83">62</reflink>]). Within some of these studies, the regulatory shift to a more formalized policy environment for universities that has occurred in numerous jurisdictions has been identified as one key driver of this development (Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref84">4</reflink>]; Whitley [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref85">62</reflink>]). Of particular note in this regard is the expansion of formal accountability and reporting requirements being directed at the higher education sector (Enders, de Boer, and Weyer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref86">17</reflink>]; Ramirez and Christensen [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref87">46</reflink>]). In accordance with the bureaucratic logic, some studies have demonstrated that these external policy pressures have been formally 'prolonged' throughout the entire organizational structure of universities (Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref88">4</reflink>]; Woelert and McKenzie [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref89">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>At the same time, it is important to note that there is evidence that parts of the increased formalization of universities also appear to have been internally driven by institutional leadership to increase institutional competitiveness nationally or internationally. One indication of this is the increased formalization of aspects of university activity that has been observed within contexts where external pressures by the state are either absent or are operating in a more indirect fashion. Well-documented examples include the formalization of decision-making structures (Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref90">4</reflink>]), the formalization of individual-level research performance assessment (Woelert and McKenzie [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref91">66</reflink>]), and the formalization of institutional quality management within universities (see Stensaker and Karakhanyan [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref92">52</reflink>]). Additionally, there is a range of evidence suggesting that increasing formalization has occurred precisely in those domains of university activity central to strategic management agendas. One key example of this is the formulation of strategic plans by universities and which are commonly framed around formal indicators of organizational success (see Thoenig and Paradeise [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref93">56</reflink>]); another is the formalization dynamics associated with the diverse outreach and entrepreneurial activities universities engage in these days to manage legitimacy or to diversify their revenue (Ramirez and Christensen [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref94">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Taken together, all this suggests that across various domains of universities' activity, formalization has increasingly been adopted by universities' leadership not merely to comply with external policy pressures and demands that ultimately reflect the bureaucratic logic, but also to realize objectives and ambitions that are primarily reflective of the strategic logic. When it comes to the emphasis placed on formalization as a mechanism of organizational governance, one can thus observe some convergence between bureaucratic and strategic logic.</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-8">Standardization</hd> <p>With the context of the bureaucratic logic, formalization is linked to standardization in that the former usually implies the use of standardized forms, guidelines, rules, and procedures to reduce complexity and ambiguity within organizations (see Best [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref95">2</reflink>]). However, one difference between the two is that while formalization remains tightly linked to the logic of written rules (March, Schulz, and Zhou [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref96">38</reflink>]), standardization is in addition also linked to the ideas of organizational accountability and effectiveness when it comes to the production and provision of core services such as, in the case of universities, teaching and research. One overt driver of standardization in these domains has been national governments' definition of standards for teaching and research that universities must comply with and against which they must report their 'outputs' (see Christensen [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref97">11</reflink>]; Guthrie and Neumann [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref98">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>At the face of it, the strategic logic should be less accommodating of standardization given that standards are commonly painted as being conducive to organizational conformity and convergence while impeding innovation (see Wright, Sturdy and Wylie [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref99">67</reflink>]). Yet there is ample evidence that, in addition to any externally mandated standardization, universities themselves have actively pursued standardization agendas due to strategic concerns regarding their competitiveness in various arenas. For example, it is commonly acknowledged that universities have undertaken sustained standardization efforts to realize increases in operational efficiency, their teaching operations being a salient case in point (see Paradeise and Thoenig 2013). There is further a range of research illuminating how universities around the world have built their strategic management agendas around a range of standardized metrics that have been employed by various nongovernmental organizations to compare universities' research performance internationally and hierarchically rank them on that basis (Brankovic [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref100">9</reflink>]; Espeland and Sauder [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref101">18</reflink>]; Paradeise and Thoenig [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref102">44</reflink>]). It perhaps does not come as a surprise, then, that a range of studies suggest that the same metrics also have come to shape universities' internal management processes at various organizational levels (see Aagaard [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref103">1</reflink>]; Woelert and McKenzie [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref104">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, both the bureaucratic and the strategic logic thus share a firm commitment to the use of standardization as a mechanism of organizational governance. In the former logic, standardization has been initially linked to the domain of administrative rules and procedures but also has been fueled by regulatory agendas aimed at establishing national standards against which universities are held accountable. By comparison, in the strategic logic, standardization is linked primarily to various metrics that have their origins either in financial accounting practices or in global regimes for the evaluation of universities' performances and which can be used for the purposes of institutional benchmarking and performance management.</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-9">Hierarchical Authority</hd> <p>Within the bureaucratic logic, a clear and formally defined system of hierarchical authority relations is regarded as both key to organizational effectiveness and a safeguard against irrationality in organizational decision-making manifesting in a disregard of formal rules and rational calculation (see Weber [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref105">60</reflink>]). Applying this logic to the domain of universities, it may thus not come as a surprise that at the level of national policies, there has been a growing preference for a shift towards a more hierarchical-bureaucratic model for the internal governance of universities (Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref106">4</reflink>]). Related to this change in national policy settings, there is further a range of evidence suggesting that over recent times, the formal authority of the senior executive of universities and its hierarchical control over core organizational processes appears to have been strengthened significantly across a variety of national contexts (Seeber et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref107">48</reflink>]; Thoenig and Paradeise [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref108">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Like the bureaucratic logic, the strategic logic also advocates for a strengthening of hierarchical-authority relations and centralized forms of control within universities, despite its rhetoric at times suggesting a departure from traditional bureaucratic forms and processes (see Courpasson [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref109">12</reflink>]; Hoggett [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref110">27</reflink>]). Moreover, the strategic logic's preferred template for the organization of such hierarchical authority relations remains in key respects directly modelled on the bureaucratic logic. The extensive systems of line management and the associated forms of managerial accountability established to enhance the strategic steering of universities, for example, clearly retain an affinity with the bureaucratic ideal of a 'clearly established system of super- and subordination' (Weber [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref111">60</reflink>], 957).</p> <p>Beyond these similarities, there remain some areas in which the strategic logic's framing of hierarchical authority relations appears to depart from the bureaucratic logic. A case in point is the shifting of the primary focus of hierarchical authority and formal accountability relations within universities from processes to performances. As previously discussed, precisely such shift has been one of the defining features of the rise of the strategic logic within universities, typically taking a form that combines accountability for performances with operational forms of autonomy providing management staff with some discretion over, for example, their local budgeting or recruitment tactics (see Enders, de Boer, and Weyer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref112">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>In some ways, such strengthening of performance-based accountability and operational autonomy within universities suggests a departure from the bureaucratic logic and the transition towards a more hands-off and flexible governance model. At the same time, however, it should also not be forgotten that the bureaucratic logic likewise provides some scope for operational autonomy, even though it continues to regard the state, and not universities themselves, as the principal in key strategic matters (Capano [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref113">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, it should also be noted that the shift towards performance-based modes of steering and control across the university introduces its own significant constraints on the ways universities' senior executive can enact its authority practically. As has been repeatedly noted, once performance-based steering has been firmly bedded down, it tends to considerably restrict the scope for universities' senior leadership to, for example, distribute resources internally to academic organizational units other than as competitively earned by them via their 'outputs' (Bleiklie, Enders, and Lepori [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref114">4</reflink>], 877; Teelken [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref115">55</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-10">Strategic Leadership</hd> <p>The strategic logic foregrounds strategic leadership as key to universities' realizing their organizational capacity to identify and target relevant niches, to build distinctive profiles, and to quickly adapt to changing environmental conditions (Fumasoli and Huisman [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref116">23</reflink>]; Teece [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref117">54</reflink>]; Thoenig and Paradeise [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref118">56</reflink>]). As indicated earlier, university executive's strategic decision-making capacities and power to enforce the strategic direction decided upon across the entire institution are frequently regarded as key enablers of effective strategic leadership.</p> <p>In emphasizing institutional leadership's role in developing and overseeing university strategy, the strategic logic both aligns with and yet also departs from the bureaucratic logic. One key area of alignment is the decidedly hierarchical and centralized (and in this sense bureaucratic) model of authority underpinning the notion of strategic leadership within the strategic logic. It is revealing in this regard that the strategic logic considers the centralization of strategic command (see Hoggett [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref119">27</reflink>]; also Courpasson [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref120">12</reflink>]) and concomitantly the strengthening of universities' executive's formal authority over strategic matters as necessary for effective strategic leadership to occur. Thus, within the strategic logic, universities' central executive is ultimately posited as the key agent of strategic change within universities.</p> <p>This emphasis on the role and agency of universities' central executive is despite numerous studies of organizational change in universities suggesting a much more complex picture of how strategic leadership can be realized in practice. It has been shown, for example, that beyond any top-down rational planning of university strategy, political capacities such as the abilities to build coalitions and to informally garner support across the institution continue to be key to the realization of effective strategic leadership within universities (see, e.g., Frølich, Christensen, and Stensaker [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref121">36</reflink>]; Thoenig and Paradeise [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref122">56</reflink>]). A range of research suggests, too, that central executive's actual strategic steering capacity can be strongly shaped by institutional dimensions, typically remaining much more constrained in highly prestigious universities as compared to, for example, those less prestigious universities aspiring to 'build their brand' (see Paradeise and Thoenig 2013; Thoenig and Paradeise [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref123">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another form of alignment between both the strategic and the bureaucratic logics stems from the formalization dynamics associated with the strengthening of strategic leadership within universities. In their study of governance change at Norwegian universities, Frølich, Christensen, and Stensaker ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref124">36</reflink>]) illustrate, for example, that attempts to steer public universities strategically in a more top-down and concerted manner are related to a growth in formalized procedures and processes regulating, for example, how the executive groups of universities organize their work and how issues are distributed in their meeting schedule over time. As this study indicates, working 'strategically' thus practically implies a proliferation of bureaucratic processes within universities as there is need for formal documentation, formal scheduling of internal hearings, and formal consultation of different entities in the organization before any decisions concerning strategy can be made.</p> <p>When it comes to the notion of strategic leadership, ultimately, the most significant point of distinction between strategic and bureaucratic logic remains the former logic's emphasis on the strategic agency of universities as organizations. Within the confines of the bureaucratic logic, such agency plays no significant role, reflecting the aforementioned fact that this logic tends to continue to regard the state as the principal that is responsible for setting broader strategic priorities and agendas and universities as agents given autonomy over operational but not broader strategic matters (see Capano [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref125">10</reflink>]; Enders, de Boer, and Weyer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref126">17</reflink>]). This is in marked contrast to the strategic logic within which the realization of strategic agency is explicitly framed as key to universities' continued legitimization and, ultimately, survival (Teece [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref127">54</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-11">Organizational Integration</hd> <p>As indicated, it is one of the core tenets of the strategic logic that universities, to realize their strategic potential, need to transform from 'loosely couple systems' into integrated organizational actors. As further illustrated, the strategic logic considers a strong central executive and a comprehensive system of performance-based management control spanning across the entire university as primary tools for accomplishing such integration. The underlying assumption here is that such a system entices or compels everyone within the university to strive towards the same overarching organizational goals and objectives set by the central executive.</p> <p>Besides this dominant 'instrumental' perspective, the strategic logic also has given some consideration to the potential of 'cultural' forces to facilitate organizational integration within universities (see Frølich and Stensaker [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref128">36</reflink>]). In such cultural perspective, organizational integration is considered not only a matter of effective top-down management but also is seen to depend on successfully engaging and involving staff from across the entire universities in a more organic fashion (see Thoenig and Paradeise 2016). For example, it has been illustrated that a compellingly formulated strategic vision of a distinctive organizational identity may have the potential not only to enhance a university's legitimacy externally, but also to create buy-in from staff across the institution (see Mampaey et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref129">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>At the same time, there is a range of research painting a more complex reality when it comes to such 'instrumental' and 'cultural' attempts at effectively integrating universities' organizational units and their activities into one coherent frame (see Maassen and Stensaker [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref130">36</reflink>]; Thoenig and Paradeise [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref131">56</reflink>]). There is much to suggest, for example, that the bedding-down of performance-based competition within universities not only disincentivizes collaboration between organizational units, but also can result in the duplication of roles and functions, thus ultimately reinforcing rather than mitigating organizational decoupling and, ultimately, fragmentation (see Croucher and Woelert [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref132">13</reflink>], 171). Similarly, it has been noted that attempts to strengthen universities' organizational identities through, for example, extensive branding and communication activities can increase levels of administrative specialization and fragmentation, thus ultimately making the task of effective organizational integration within universities more challenging (Maassen and Stensaker [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref133">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Compared to the strategic logic, the bureaucratic logic is less overt about the need for enhanced organizational integration. That may be in parts because, traditionally, the bureaucratic logic regards such integration to be achieved, automatically as it were, through socialization of individuals into distinct and clearly defined formal roles and the associated rule-following practices (see Weber [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref134">60</reflink>]). At the same time, however, there are at least two reasons to believe that increasing formalization has the potential to also complicate organizational integration within universities. First, there is ample research illustrating that increasing formalization has the potential to extend as well as undermine effective central control and steering of organizational activities (see Monteiro and Adler [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref135">42</reflink>], 449). Second, it is a core insight of the sociology of organizations that increasing formalization tends to heighten, not reduce, the importance of informality within organizations (e.g., Crozier [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref136">14</reflink>]; Meyer and Rowan [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref137">40</reflink>]), thus potentially thwarting any overt attempts to integrate actors and their activities into one coherent formal-organizational frame. For universities, the occurrence of such formalization-informality dynamics has been well documented for domains such as institutional governance – for example, when it comes to the steering role of advisory boards (Stensaker, Jungblut, and Mihut [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref138">51</reflink>]) – research administration (Bozeman, Youtie, and Jung [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref139">8</reflink>]), and performance management (see Woelert [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref140">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>At least when it comes to the task of organizational integration, both strategic and bureaucratic logic thus ultimately are facing a similar set of challenges – namely, that their key means for achieving organizational integration within universities have the potential to further organizational decouplings also.</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-12">Managerialism</hd> <p>In the literature on universities, the concept of managerialism tends to be approached both as an organizational practice and as an ideology (see Shepherd [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref141">49</reflink>]). As a practice, managerialism tends to be associated with the adoption of standardizing management systems and techniques at universities that have their roots in the private sector (e.g., performance management) and which are operated and controlled by generic managers rather than professionals (see, e.g., Diefenbach, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref142">15</reflink>]; Shephard 2018). As an ideology, managerialism has been inter alia associated with normative tenets that posit managerial systems and techniques as value-neutral and inherently rational tools for organizational governance and which are held to be universally applicable to all sorts of different organizations including universities (Musselin [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref143">43</reflink>]; Shepherd [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref144">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>Within the strategic logic, managerial systems and techniques are allocated the key role of handmaiden of strategic leadership. Their specific function is to ensure that the strategic direction and priorities decided upon by the executive are adhered to across the university. In this context, managerialism places a particular emphasis on performance- or output-based forms of monitoring and control, as indicated. While such emphasis suggests a departure from the bureaucratic focus on process and procedures, there remain several key domains in which managerialism and bureaucratic logic significantly converge.</p> <p>Despite any rhetoric to the contrary, managerialism remains, first, broadly aligned with the bureaucratic logic in its hierarchical and, ultimately, centralized framing of organizational governance. One obvious manifestation of this is the aforementioned affinity between line management and the associated systems of managerial accountability, on the one hand, and the bureaucratic system of super- and subordination that Weber refers to on the other. Another key indication is the centralization of strategic decision-making and control previously discussed and to which managerialism remains strongly committed to even while organizations become more decentralized and entrepreneurial in their activities and operations (Courpasson [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref145">12</reflink>]; Hoggett [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref146">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>In its practice, managerialism remains, second, strongly committed to the use of both standardization and formalization as key tools of organizational governance, even if the specific ways and contexts in which these are used are somewhat different to those associated with the bureaucratic logic. Performance measurement and the associated management practices, for example, appear to have been key drivers of both standardization and formalization within universities over recent decades, reflecting both the increasing reliance on various metrics for the evaluation of performances and the necessity to develop and constantly adapt comprehensive systems of formal rules and procedures specifying how precisely performances are assessed (Whitley [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref147">62</reflink>]; Woelert [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref148">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, as an ideology, managerialism's framing as an inherent rational and value-neutral form and practice of organizational governance remains reminiscent of long-established framings of bureaucracy in terms of impersonality and rationality (Weber [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref149">60</reflink>]). Similarly, the framing of generic managerial forms and practices as being universally applicable to a variety of different organizational contexts – including highly professionalized organizations such as universities (see Musselin [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref150">43</reflink>]) – evokes similar tenets concerning scope of applicability underpinning the bureaucratic logic (see Weber [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref151">60</reflink>], 956). Reflecting all this, it thus can be concluded that across practical and ideological domains, there remain significant areas of convergence and indeed overlap between managerialism and the bureaucratic logic.</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-13">The Configuration of Strategic Bureaucracy: Key Implications</hd> <p>As illustrated in the previous section, in the restructuring of universities as organizations, both the bureaucratic and the strategic logic can converge and combine in a number of dynamic and intricate ways. One particularly salient aspect of the observed convergence was the featuring of several key characteristics across the two logics – the emphasis on top-down modes of organizational governance and the tendency towards formalization and standardization being the most obvious examples. Reflecting the observed patterns of convergence and coupling between the two logics, one may thus speak of the emergence of a configuration of organizational governance within the university sector that one can refer to as 'strategic bureaucracy'.</p> <p>Our analyses further revealed that in the process of the constitution of strategic bureaucracy, both logics do not contribute equally. Perhaps most strikingly, in our analyses, we found ample examples of the strategic logic relying upon and adapting features traditionally associated with the bureaucratic logic, while there was less evidence of the opposite occurring. In particular, the three key bureaucratic features of formalization, standardization, and hierarchical authority were all shown to be central to the constitution of the strategic logic, too. By comparison, the three key strategic features identified – strategic leadership, organizational integration, and managerialism – overall appeared to play a much less significant and, if at all, only indirect role within the bureaucratic logic. In many ways, these findings into organizational change within universities lend further support to more recent arguments that, despite all the rhetoric about management innovation, bureaucracy as an organizational form continues to matter across a range of sectors (see Monteiro and Adler [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref152">42</reflink>]; Sturdy, Wright and Wylie [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref153">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>At the same time, it is important to remember that within universities, strategic bureaucracy is no monolith but itself comes in a range of different forms depending on the respective role of and interaction between the two logics. After all, we are dealing with two logics here that sometimes seem to exist in parallel and at other times blur or combine into something new. Keeping in mind this complexity and considering the broader aspirations associated with both bureaucratic and strategic narratives referred to earlier, it is possible to identify several key implications arising from the emergence of strategic bureaucracy for universities as organizations.</p> <p>First, the proliferation of strategic bureaucracy is likely to increase organizational ambiguity within universities. At a basic level, this is because both bureaucratic and strategic logic, despite all convergence, remain linked to differently accentuated narratives concerning broader organizational goals. Uneven articulation between bureaucratic and strategic logic across different organizational domains is another likely source of ambiguity. It is well conceivable, for example, that in one and the same university, different organizational domains remain ostensibly dominated by either bureaucratic or strategic logic with respect to internal coordination and control (Maassen and Stensaker [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref154">36</reflink>]). Interestingly, there is much to suggest that from an organizational governance perspective, any ambiguities arising from the articulation of strategic and bureaucratic logic offer both challenges and opportunities. Challenges, because any such ambiguities plausibly complicate the task of steering and organizing universities in a coherent, strategic manner (see Vermeulen et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref155">58</reflink>]). And opportunities, research suggests, because the same ambiguities provide those in charge within organizations with some scope for strategically exercising power without being confined by either logic (see Best [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref156">2</reflink>]; Vermeulen et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref157">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, the stronger the influence of the strategic logic within universities, the more bureaucratically complex universities tend to become as organizations. This reflects the observed increases in top-down steering, formalization, and standardization that accompanies the consolidation of the strategic logic within universities, and which often extends to organizational domains that previously were exempt from direct bureaucratic monitoring and control. Any restructuring of universities along the lines advocated by the strategic logic thus should not be seen as amounting to realization of an alternative to the university as a bureaucratic organization. On the contrary, our previous analyses suggest that such restructuring, in important ways, rather amounts to a transformation of the forms and avenues through which bureaucratization manifests, often entailing an expanse rather than reduction of the scope and intensity of bureaucratic features.</p> <p>Third, the more entrenched the strategic bureaucracy becomes within universities, paradoxically the less scope there may remain for the exercise of strategic leadership. To a significant extent, this reflects the observation that both the bureaucratic and the strategic logics, in their own ways, impose restrictions on the ways those in charge at universities can exercise strategic leadership on the ground. The bureaucratic logic, as shown, neither provides scope nor sees an explicit need for the unfolding of universities' strategic autonomy, thus ultimately restricting university leadership's scope for strategic adjustments. The strategic logic, by contrast, theoretically provides such scope but practically comes with its own restrictions, as even leadership cannot easily circumvent the formal mechanisms concerning performance management and internal competition once these have been firmly established. After all, it is a core characteristic of the bureaucratic organization that even leaders remain subject to and disciplined by formal rules (see Weber, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref158">60</reflink>]). It follows from all this that the capacity of universities to act strategically may actually become increasingly restricted the more sedimented the strategic bureaucracy becomes within their organizational fabric.</p> <p>Fourth, and related to this, in important respects, the rise and consolidation of strategic bureaucracy within universities may imply, perhaps unintentionally, a reduction in universities' capacity to rapidly respond to opportunities in their environment. The key issue here is that neither the bureaucratic nor the strategic logic recognizes the potential organizational benefits arising from the 'looseness' of universities. As a matter of fact, there is a range of research suggesting that universities' adaptive capacities are very much dependent on the autonomy of academic departments, research centers, and individuals to quickly recognize and exploit academic opportunities as they emerge (see Krücken [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref159">32</reflink>]; Thoenig and Paradeise [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref160">56</reflink>]). These may include, for example, research or teaching opportunities that require swift response to and bottom-up forms of cooperation with local communities, or technology transfer opportunities the realization of which, research suggests, often requires high levels of personal trust and effective personal interactions (Krücken [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref161">32</reflink>], 1444). In endeavoring to eliminate organizational 'slack' and looseness within universities, the strategic bureaucracy and the associated features thus ultimately may end up undermining some of the key foundations from which universities derive their responsiveness as organizations in the first place.</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-14">Final Reflection</hd> <p>In this conceptual piece we have traced the articulation of two key logics associated with the ongoing restructuring of universities as organizations: the bureaucratic logic and the strategic logic. Our analyses of the key features associated with each logic revealed that both logics converge and combine in intricate ways, thus giving rise to a hybrid configuration of organizational governance we labelled 'strategic bureaucracy.'</p> <p>One key insight arising from this paper is that to do justice to the complexity of changes in university organization around the world, a reconsideration and renewed appreciation of the role of bureaucracy is called for. In many ways, our analyses revealed that recent attempts at transforming the organizational fabric of universities remain in key respects rooted in bureaucratic approaches and agendas. Importantly, it was shown that this includes those organizational transformations directly reflecting the growing influence of the strategic logic, despite any associated management rhetoric to the contrary. All of this demonstrates that any talk of universities becoming 'post-bureaucratic' in terms of their internal governance and organizational arrangements is decidedly misleading.</p> <p>While our conception of strategic bureaucracy has been distilled from a wide range of observations of changes occurring within universities around the world, is necessarily maintains a level of abstractness reflecting the broader conceptual scope and ambition of this paper. As a result, we see a need for in-depth empirical studies examining how specifically bureaucratic and strategic logics articulate within different types of institutions and across a range of national settings. There is a need, for example, for further examination of how specifically different types of universities within one national system have differently responded to and bedded down bureaucratic and strategic logic internally, and with what implications (see Paradeise and Thoenig [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref162">44</reflink>]). In-depth case studies exploring the articulation of both logics in universities that have undergone processes of institutional merging could yield interesting insights too, particularly if considering both mergers that have been driven by universities' strategic concerns primarily and government-initiated mergers reflecting top-down bureaucratic concerns and agendas (see Ylijoki [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref163">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>At the same time, future empirical studies could shed light on some of the ways in which the prevalence of the two logics and their dynamics of articulation are shaped by macro-level policy and funding settings more broadly and by those settings with a reform history related to NPM more specifically. It may well be the case, for example, that the influence of the strategic logic is strengthened where universities are becoming more autonomous financially, that is, less reliant on public funds, and that the bureaucratic logic remains more dominant where the state provides the bulk of universities' funding. At the same time, there are reasons to believe that the picture may well be more complex than that considering that a range of macro-level policy settings for universities have been shown to harbor tensions and, potentially, contradictions between autonomy and control (see, e.g., Christensen [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref164">11</reflink>]; Enders, de Boer, and Weyer [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref165">17</reflink>]). The establishment of individual agreements between national authorities and universities provides one interesting avenue for further research in this context as, in some settings at least, the strategic ambitions of individual universities are increasingly being co-opted into the system-level steering of the higher education sector (Lackner [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref166">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another important avenue for future research is exploration of the implications of the emergence of strategic bureaucracy for the administrative burdens experienced by those working within or engaging with universities. Levels of administrative burden within universities around the world have been a key concern of late, as a growing literature attests to (Bozeman and Youtie [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref167">7</reflink>]; Woelert [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref168">65</reflink>]). In this paper, we have argued that the emergence and consolidation of strategic bureaucracy tend to make universities more and not less bureaucratically complex, reflecting increases in organizational formalization and standardization, among other things. As such, the question of how the growing sway of strategic bureaucracy within universities may influence and, potentially, amplify administrative burdens on the ground is well worth serious attention.</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-15">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>Some of the time for writing this paper was provided through a Senior Fellowship from the College for Social Sciences and Humanities, University Alliance Ruhr, Germany (Peter Woelert).</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-16">Funding</hd> <p>Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions</p> <hd id="AN0183435071-17">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0183435071-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref37" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aagaard Kaare. How Incentives Trickle down: Local Use of a National Bibliometric Indicator System. Science and Public Policy. 2015; 42; 5: 725-737. 10.1093/scipol/scu087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref53" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Best Jacqueline. Bureaucratic Ambiguity. Economy and Society. 2012; 41; 1: 84-106. 10.1080/03085147.2011.637333</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref42" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Blau Peter M. The Organization of Academic Work. 1973: New York; Wiley</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref1" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bleiklie IvarJürgen Enders and Benedetto Lepori. Organizations as Penetrated Hierarchies: Environmental Pressures and Control in Professional Organizations. Organizational Studies. 2015; 36; 7: 873-896. 10.1177/0170840615571960/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref20" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bleiklie IvarJürgen Enders and Benedetto Lepori. Managing Universities: Policy and Organizational Change from a Western European Comparative Perspective. 2017: New York; Palgrave. 10.1007/978-3-319-53865-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref30" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bozeman Barry, Scott Patrick. Bureaucratic Red Tape and Formalization: Untangling Conceptual Knots. The American Review of Public Administration. 1996; 26; 1: 1-17. 10.1177/027507409602600101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref167" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bozeman Barry. Robotic Bureaucracy: Administrative Burden and Red Tape in University Research. Public Administration Review. 2020; 80; 1: 157-162. 10.1111/puar.13105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref139" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bozeman Barry, Youtie Jan. Death by a Thousand 10-Minute Tasks: Workarounds and Noncompliance in University Research Administration. Administration &amp; Society. 2021; 53; 4: 527-568. 10.1177/0095399720947994</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref14" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brankovic Jelena. The Status Games They Play: Unpacking the Dynamics of Organisational Status Competition in Higher Education. Higher Education. 2018; 75; 4: 695-709. 10.1007/s10734-017-0169-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Capano Giliberto. Government Continues to Do Its Job. A Comparative Study of Governance Shifts in the Higher Education Sector. Public Administration. 2011; 89; 4: 1622-1642. 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01936.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christensen Tom. University Governance Reforms: Potential Problems of More Autonomy?. Higher Education. 2011; 62; 4: 503-517. 10.1007/s10734-010-9401-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Courpasson David. Managerial Strategies of Domination. Power in Soft Bureaucracies. Organization Studies. 2000; 21; 1: 141-161. 10.1177/0170840600211001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Croucher Gwilym, Woelert Peter. Administrative Transformation and Managerial Growth: A Longitudinal Analysis of Changes in the Non-Academic Workforce at Australian Universities. Higher Education. 2022; 84; 1: 159-175. 10.1007/s10734-021-00759-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crozier Michel. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. 1964: Chicago; University of Chicago Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diefenbach Thomas. New Public Management in Public Sector Organizations: The Dark Sides of Managerialistic 'Enlightenment'. Public Administration. 2009; 87; 4: 892-909. 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01766.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dougherty Kevin J, Jones Sosanya, Lahr Hana, Natow Rebecca S, Pheatt Lara, Reddy Vikash. Performance Funding for Higher Education. 2016: Baltimore; Johns Hopkins University. 10.1353/book.47910</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enders Jürgen, de Boer Harry, Weyer Elke. Regulatory Autonomy and Performance: The Reform of Higher Education Re-Visited. Higher Education. 2013; 65; 1: 5-23. 10.1007/s10734-012-9578-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Espeland Wendy Nelson, Sauder Michael. Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds. American Journal of Sociology. 2007; 113; 1: 1-40. 10.1086/517897</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferlie Ewan, Ashburner Lynn, Fitzgerald Louise, Pettigrew Andrew. The New Public Management in Action. 1996: Oxford; Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198289029.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferlie Ewan, Ongaro Edoardo. Strategic Management in Public Services Organizations: Concepts, Schools and Contemporary Issues. 2015: New York; Routledge. 10.4324/9780203736432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frølich Nicoline. Multi-Layered Accountability. Performance-Based Funding of Universities. Public Administration. 2011; 89; 3: 840-859. 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01867.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frølich, Nicoline, Tom Christensen, and Bjørn Stensaker. 2019. Strengthening the Strategic Capacity of Public Universities: The Role of Internal Governance Models. Public Policy and Administration 34(4): 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076718762041.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fumasoli Tatiana. Strategic Agency and System Diversity: Conceptualizing Institutional Positioning in Higher Education. Minerva. 2013; 51; 2: 155-169. 10.1007/s11024-013-9225-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fumasoli Tatiana. Organizational Studies in Higher Education: A Reflection on Historical Themes and Prospective Trends. Higher Education Policy. 2013; 26; 4: 479-496. 10.1057/hep.2013.25</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gajduschek Gyorgy. Bureaucracy: Is It Efficient? Is It Not? Is That the Question?. Administration &amp; Society. 2003; 34; 6: 700-723. 10.1177/0095399702239171</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie James. Economic and Non-Financial Performance Indicators in Universities. Public Management Review. 2007; 9; 2: 231-252. 10.1080/14719030701340390</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoggett Paul. A New Management in the Public Sector?. Policy &amp; Politics. 2007; 19; 4: 243-256. 10.1332/030557391782454179</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hood Christopher, James Oliver, Guy Peters B, Scott Colin. Controlling Modern Government: Variety, Commonality and Change. 2004: Cheltenham; Edward Elgar. 10.4337/9781845423599</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jungblut Jens, Vukasovic Martina. Not All Markets Are Created Equal: Re-Conceptualizing Market Elements in Higher Education. Higher Education. 2018; 75; 5: 855-870. 10.1007/s10734-017-0174-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kallinikos Jannis. The Social Foundations of the Bureaucratic Order. Organization. 2004; 11; 1: 13-36. 10.1177/1350508404039657</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kallio Tomi J, Kallio Kirsi-Mari, Blomberg Annika. From Professional Bureaucracy to Competitive Bureaucracy – Redefining Universities' Organization Principles, Performance Measurement Criteria, and Reason for Being. Qualitative Research in Accounting &amp; Management. 2020; 17; 1: 82-108. 10.1108/QRAM-10-2019-0111</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krücken Georg. Higher Education Reforms and Unintended Consequences: A Research Agenda. Studies in Higher Education. 2014; 39; 8: 1439-1450. 10.1080/03075079.2014.949539</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krücken Georg. Multiple Competitions in Higher Education: A Conceptual Approach. Innovation. 2021; 23; 2: 163-181. 10.1080/14479338.2019.1684652</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krücken, Georg, and Frank Meier. 2006. Turning the University into an Organizational Actor. In Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change, eds. Gili S. Drori, John W. Meyer, and Hokyu Hwang, 241–257. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lackner, Elisabeth J. 2023. Agreements between the State and Higher Education Institutions – How Do They Matter for Institutional Autonomy? Studies in Higher Education 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2258901.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maassen Peter. From Organised Anarchy to De-Coupled Bureaucracy: The Transformation of University Organisation. Higher Education Quarterly. 2019; 73; 4: 456-468. 10.1111/hequ.12229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mansfield Roger. Bureaucracy and Centralization: An Examination of Organizational Structure. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1973; 18; 4: 477-488. 10.2307/2392200</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> March James G, Schulz Martin, Zhou Xueguang. The Dynamics of Rules: Change in Written Organizational Codes. 2000: Stanford; Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9781503618411</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mampaey Jelle, Schtemberg Vanja, Schijns Jos, Huisman Jeroen, Wæraas Arild. Internal Branding in Higher Education: Dialectical Tensions Underlying the Discursive Legitimation of a New Brand of Student Diversity. Higher Education Research &amp; Development. 2020; 39; 2: 230-243. 10.1080/07294360.2019.1674252</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer John W. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology. 1977; 83; 2: 340-363. 10.1086/226550</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mintzberg, Henry. 1979. The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research. Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Monteiro Pedro. Bureaucracy for the 21st Century: Clarifying and Expanding Our View of Bureaucratic Organization. Academy of Management Annals. 2022; 16; 2: 427-475. 10.5465/annals.2019.0059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Musselin, Christine. 2006. Are Universities Specific Organizations? In Towards a Multiversity? Universities between Global Trends and National Traditions, eds. Georg Krücken, Anna Kosmützky, and Marc Torka, 63–84. Bielefeld: Transcript.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paradeise Catherine. Academic Institutions in Search of Quality: Local Orders and Global Standards. Organization Studies. 2013; 34; 2: 189-218. 10.1177/0170840612473550</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pollitt Christopher. Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience. 1990: Cambridge, Mass; Basil Blackwell</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramirez Francisco O. The Formalization of the University: Rules, Roots, and Routes. Higher Education. 2013; 65; 6: 695-708. 10.1007/s10734-012-9571-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneijderberg, Christian. 2017. Bureaucratization Process in Higher Education. In Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions, eds. Pedro Nuno Teixeira and Jung-Cheol Shin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seeber Marco, Lepori Benedetto, Montauti Martina, Enders Jürgen, de Boer Harry, Weyer Elke, Bleiklie Ivar. European Universities as Complete Organizations? Understanding Identity, Hierarchy and Rationality in Public Organizations. Public Management Review. 2015; 17; 10: 1444-1474. 10.1080/14719037.2014.943268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shepherd Sue. Managerialism: An Ideal Type. Studies in Higher Education. 2018; 43; 9: 1668-1678. 10.1080/03075079.2017.1281239</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stensaker Bjørn. Multi-Level Strategies in Universities: Coordination, Contestation or Creolisation?. Higher Education Quarterly. 2017; 71; 3: 263-273. 10.1111/hequ.12126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stensaker, Bjørn, Jens Jungblut, and Georgiana Mihut. 2021. Strategic Advisory Boards – the Emergence of Shadow Governance in Universities? International Journal of Leadership in Education 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.1913237.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stensaker, Bjørn, and Susanna Karakhanyan. 2020. Institutional Quality Management. Comparative Reflections. In Global Trends in Higher Education Quality Assurance, eds. Susanna Karakhanyan and Bjørn Stensaker, 78–90. Rotterdam: Brill Sense.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sturdy Andrew, Wright Christopher. Managers as Consultants: The Hybridity and Tensions of Neo-bureaucratic Management. Organization. 2016; 23; 2: 184-205. 10.1177/1350508414541580</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teece David J. Managing the University: Why 'Organized Anarchy' Is Unacceptable in the Age of Massive Open Online Courses. Strategic Organization. 2018; 16; 1: 92-102. 10.1177/1476127017732760</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teelken Christine. Hybridity, Coping Mechanisms, and Academic Performance Management: Comparing Three Countries. Public Administration. 2015; 93; 2: 307-323. 10.1111/padm.12138</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thoenig Jean Claude. Strategic Capacity and Organisational Capabilities: A Challenge for Universities. Minerva. 2016; 54; 3: 293-324. 10.1007/s11024-016-9297-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thornton Patricia H, Ocasio William. The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process. 2012: Oxford; Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vermeulen Patrick AM, Zietsma Charlene, Greenwood Royston. Strategic Responses to Institutional Complexity. Strategic Organization. 2016; 14; 4: 277-286. 10.1177/1476127016675997</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vismann Cornelia. Files: Law and Media Technology. 2008: Stanford; Stanford University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weber Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. 1978: Berkeley; University of California Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weick Karl E. Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1976; 21; 1: 1-19. 10.2307/2391875</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitley Richard. Changing Governance and Authority Relations in the Public Sciences. Minerva. 2011; 49; 4: 359-385. 10.1007/s11024-011-9182-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woelert Peter. Governing Knowledge: The Formalization Dilemma in the Governance of the Public Sciences. Minerva. 2015; 53; 1: 1-19. 10.1007/s11024-015-9266-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woelert Peter. Reactivity and the Dialectics of Performance Measurement: Micropolitics Between Agency and Compliance. Administration and Society. 2021; 53; 6: 963-983. 10.1177/00953997211003841</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woelert Peter. Administrative Burden in Higher Education Institutions: A Conceptualisation and a Research Agenda. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2023; 45; 4: 409-422. 10.1080/1360080X.2023.2190967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woelert Peter. Follow the Money? How Australian Universities Replicate National Performance-Based Funding Mechanisms. Research Evaluation. 2018; 27; 3: 184-195. 10.1093/reseval/rvy018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright Christopher. Management Innovation through Standardization: Consultants as Standardizers of Organizational Practice. Research Policy. 2012; 41; 3: 652-662. 10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ylijoki Oili Helena. University Under Structural Reform: A Micro-Level Perspective. Minerva. 2014; 52; 1: 55-75. 10.1007/s11024-014-9246-1</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0183435071-19"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> It is worth noting here that in Weber's analysis of the bureaucratic organization, contrary to the common depiction (and which in part arises from issues of translation), efficiency is not a key concern (see Gajduschek [25]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Use and implementation of these governance instruments has by no means been uniform. Even across the Anglosphere, for example, one can identify notable differences, with national standards and the associated accountability mechanisms playing hardly any role in the United States while having become central to system-level governance arrangements in Australia and the United Kingdom over recent decades (see Hood et al.[28]). Conversely, the United States with its traditionally high levels of university autonomy have seen a sweeping proliferation in state-controlled performance-based funding systems for universities' teaching operations (Dougherty et al.[16]) over recent times that appears to have no in equivalent in other Anglosphere countries.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Peter Woelert and Bjørn Stensaker</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref166"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1461631 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Strategic Bureaucracy: The Convergence of Bureaucratic and Strategic Management Logics in the Organizational Restructuring of Universities – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Peter+Woelert%22">Peter Woelert</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0511-4176">0000-0002-0511-4176</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bjørn+Stensaker%22">Bjørn Stensaker</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Minerva%3A+A+Review+of+Science%2C+Learning+and+Policy%22"><i>Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy</i></searchLink>. 2025 63(1):1-21. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 21 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Strategic+Planning%22">Strategic Planning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Restructuring%22">School Restructuring</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrative+Organization%22">Administrative Organization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Logical+Thinking%22">Logical Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Governance%22">Governance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Articulation+%28Education%29%22">Articulation (Education)</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s11024-024-09535-1 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0026-4695<br />1573-1871 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Over recent decades, one can identify two key narratives associated with changes in university organization and governance. The first narrative focuses on the administrative consequences of an off-loading state relinquishing direct control over some of universities' internal operations while at the same time driving bureaucratization at the institutional level. The second narrative focuses on the emergence of an increasingly competitive and uncertain environment driving universities to transform into strategically managed organizations. In this paper, we argue that while the organizational logics associated with these two narratives imply differently accentuated forms of legitimation, they converge and combine with respect to key dimensions of universities' internal organizing, ultimately giving rise to a hybrid form of organizational governance we label 'strategic bureaucracy'. Such strategic bureaucracy, we illustrate, is characterized by a strong focus on strategic leadership and the associated management techniques while also intensifying organizational features traditionally associated with bureaucratic governance such as formalization and hierarchical authority. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1461631 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1461631 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s11024-024-09535-1 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 21 StartPage: 1 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Strategic Planning Type: general – SubjectFull: School Restructuring Type: general – SubjectFull: Administrative Organization Type: general – SubjectFull: Universities Type: general – SubjectFull: Logical Thinking Type: general – SubjectFull: Governance Type: general – SubjectFull: Articulation (Education) Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Strategic Bureaucracy: The Convergence of Bureaucratic and Strategic Management Logics in the Organizational Restructuring of Universities Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Peter Woelert – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Bjørn Stensaker IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 03 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0026-4695 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1573-1871 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 63 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
