, Volume 52, Issue 4, pp 381–417 | Cite as

Organizational Governance and the Production of Academic Quality: Lessons from Two Top U.S. Research Universities

  • Jean-Claude Thoenig
  • Catherine Paradeise


Does organizational governance contribute to academic quality? Two top research universities are observed in-depth: Berkeley and the MIT. Three key factors are listed that help generate consistent and lasting high performance. Priority is allocated to self-evaluation and to the development of talent. Values and norms such as community membership, commitment to the affectio societatis, mutual respect and trust strongly regulate the behaviors of the faculty. Complex inner organizational processes are at work making integration and differentiation compatible. Each of these factors contributes to produce top academic quality in a synergetic way.


Academic quality Evaluation Interaction processes Organizational governance Research university Values 


  1. Aghion, Philippe, Mathias Dewatripont, Caroline M. Hoxby, Andreu Mas-Soleil, and André Sapir. 2009. The Governance and Performance of Research Universities: Evidence from Europe and the USA. NBER Working Paper No. 14851,
  2. Burns, Tom, and George M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cameron, Kim S., and Robert E. Quinn. 1999. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Crane, Diana. 1972. Invisible Colleges. Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Graham, Hugh D., and Nancy Diamond. 1997. The Rise of the American Research Universities: Elites and Challengers in the Postwar Era. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hedlund, Gunar, and Dag Rolander. 1990. Action in Heterarchies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Hughes, Raymond M. 1925. A Study of the Graduate Schools in America. Oxford: Miami University.Google Scholar
  8. Karpik, Lucien. 2010. Valuing the Unique. The Economics of Singularity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kerr, Clark. 1963. Uses of the University. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kochan, Thomas A. 2011. Faculty Governance at MIT: Strength and Future Challenges. MIT faculty newsletter XXIII 5, May/June.Google Scholar
  11. Koshland, Daniel E., Roderic B. Park, and Louise Taylor. 2003. The Reorganization of Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. Interviews Conducted by Sally Smith Hughes in 1998 and 1999. Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  12. Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How Professors Think. Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. March, James G. 1962. The Business Firm as a Political Coalition. Journal of Politics 24: 662–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Merton, Robert K. 1973/1960. Recognition and Excellence, Instructive Ambiguities. In The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. ed. Norman W. Storer. 419–438, Chicago and London: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  15. Paradeise, Catherine, and Jean-Claude Thoenig. 2013. Academic Institutions in Search of Quality: Local Orders and Global Standards. Organization Studies 34(2): 195–224.Google Scholar
  16. Paradeise, Catherine, Jean-Claude Thoenig, Stéphanie Mignot-Gérard, Emilie Biland, Aurélie Delemarle, and Gaëlle Goastellec. 2014. Relevance and Excellence in Higher Education Vocational Schools. Business Schools as Institutional Actors. In The Institutional Development of Business Schools, eds. Andrew M. Pettigrew, Eric Cornuel and Ulrich Hommel. 126–151, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rauhvargers, Andrej. 2011. Global University Rankings and their Impact. EUA Report on Rankings.Google Scholar
  18. Rosovsky, Henry. 1991. The University. W. W. Norton: An Owner’s Manual. London.Google Scholar
  19. Salmi, Jamil. 2009. The Challenge of Source: Establishing World-Class Universities. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  20. Slaughter, Sheila, and Gary Rhoades. 2004. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  21. Stark, David. 2001. Heterarchy: Exploiting Ambiguity and Organizing Diversity. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy 21(1): 21–39.Google Scholar
  22. Stark, David. 2009. The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Stinchcombe, A.L. 1990. Information and Organization. Berkeley: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Thompson, James D., and Arthur Tuden. 1967. Strategies, Structures, and Processes of Organizational Decision. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  25. Trow, Martin. 1999. Biology at Berkeley. A Case Study of Reorganization and Its Costs and Benefits. Research and Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.1.99, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  26. Weick, Karl E. 1976. Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 21(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilson, James Q. 1973. Political Organizations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Paris-Dauphine, Dauphine Recherches en Management (DRM)Université Paris-Dauphine and CNRSParisFrance
  2. 2.Université Paris EstChamps sur MarneFrance
  3. 3.Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations Sociétés (LISIS)Université Paris Est and CNRSChamps sur MarneFrance

Personalised recommendations