Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Out by More than One Degree: Politics and Organizational Change Within an Australian University

  • Published:
Educational Research for Policy and Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The pressures facing universities today are manifold, and universities throughout the world have come to realise that they can no longer proceed as they have done in the past. In many nations universities are being forced to perform a delicate balancing act between romoting increased access to tertiary education, while at the same time dealing with reductions in core funding from governments. Once somewhat oblivious to the hardcore precepts of management theory, universities are increasingly talking about ‘restructures’ to meet these competing objectives. In short, they are trying to do more with less, and therefore studying the way(s) in which universities negotiate this dilemma has become as important as ever. This case study employs neo-institutional theory to argue that actors pursue their actions within the constraints of endogenous and exogenous factors (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996). Using this theory, the paper assesses the execution of strategic change within one of Australia’s largest universities before concluding with some general prescriptions as to how university management can better actualise organizational reconfiguration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldrich H. (1999). Organizations Evolving. SAGE, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansoff H.I. (1991). Critique of Henry Mintzberg’s, The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 12: 449–461

    Google Scholar 

  • Beeman, D. R. & Sharkey, T. W. (1987). The use and abuse of corporate politics. Business Horizons, March–April.

  • Blau P. (1970). The formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review 35: 201–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau P. and Schoenherr R. (1971). The Structure of Organizations. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bubna-Litic, D. (1995). Strategy as Fiction. SCOS 13th International Conference, Turku, Finland, Turku School of Economics and Business Administration.

  • Buchanan D. and Badham R. (1999). Power, Politics and Organizational Change – Winning the Turf Game. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns T. and Stalker G.M. (1961). The Management Innovation. Tavistock, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. & Jerram, C. (2001). Understanding Crisis from a Sense-Making Perspective: An IS Operation Change? Proceedings of The Twelfth Australasian Conference on Information Systems ACIS 2001, Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia.

  • Clarke M. (1999). Management development as a game of meaningless outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal 9(2): 38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg S. (1975). Power, Rule and Domination. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg S. (1989). Frameworks of Power. SAGE Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg S. (2000). Power, politics and Organizational change: Winning the turf game. Human Resource Management Journal 10(4): 94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombes, R. (2000). Settlement Documents for the National Tertiary Education Union, and The Community and Public Sector Union.

  • Child J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology 6: 1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child J. (1984). Organization. Harper and Row, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis L.E. and Canter R.R. (1955). Job design. Journal of Industrial Engineering 6(1): 3

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brennan, S. (2004). Critique, culture and commitment: the dangerous and counterproductive paths of international legal discourse. Law, Social Justice & Global Development Journal (LGD). <http://www.go.warwick.ac.uk/elj/lgd/debrennan>.

  • De Brennan, S. (forthcoming). Bureaucracy versus other Organizational forms – the dinosaurs are back. Journal of Business Ethics.

  • DiMaggio P. and Powell W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson L. (1997). A positivist alternative to the structure-action approach. Organization Studies 18: 77–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Gay P. (2000). In Praise of Bureaucracy. Thousand Oaks, SAGE, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunphy D. and Griffiths A. (1998). The Sustainable Corporation: Organizational Renewal in Australia. Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Faddoul D. (2001). UTT – ‘Restructure’ or ‘Co$t Cutting?’ Roar (Orientation Week Edition). NUS Publication, New South Wales

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray J.T. (1999). Restructuring law firms: Reflexivity and emerging forms. In: Brock, D.M., Powell, M.J. and Hinings, C.R. (eds) Restructuring the Professional Organization: Accounting, Healthcare and Law., pp. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. T. & Hinings, C. R. (2001). Archetypology: How to Track Emerging Forms in Institutional Fields. Paper presented at the Third Knowledge Intensive Firms Conference, Said Business School, Christ College, Oxford University.

  • Greenwood R. and Hinings C.R. (1993). understanding strategic change: The contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal 36(5): 1052–1081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood R. and Hinings C.R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review 21(4): 1022–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handy C. (1993). Understanding Organizations. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward H.E. (1987). Management, myth and ritual. The Practicing Manager, 7 (2)

  • Hickson D.J., Hinings C.R, Pennings J.M. and Schneck R.E. (1974). Structural conditions of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly 19: 22–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinings C.R. and Greenwood R. (1999). The dynamics of change in large accounting firms. In: Brock, D.M., Powell, M.J. and Hinnings, C.R. (eds) Restructuring the Professional Organization: Accounting, Healthcare and Law., pp. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hislop D. and Newell S. (2000). Networks, knowledge and power: Decision making, politics and the process of innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12(3): 399–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram P. and Clay K. (2000). The Choice-within-constraints new institutionalism and implications for sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 525–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kikulis L., Slack T. and Hinings C.R. (1995). Does decision making make a difference? patterns of change within canadian sporting organizations. Journal of Sport Management 9: 273–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Knox M. (2000). University of Hard Knocks. The Sydney Morning Herald. 7 August, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence P. and Lorsch J. (1967). Organization and Environment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Linde C.V. (2001). Strategic quality planning for teachers in the new millennium. Education 12(3): 535–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipari, K. (2001) Book burial. How a uni deals with a shortfall in funding. The Daily Telegraph, 21 March, 1.

  • Mac Donald, T. (2001). Students protest at lack of funding at UTT. World Socialist Website. Internet. Available from: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/UTT -m27_prn.shtml accessed 04/05/01.

  • Mayes, B. T. & Allen, R. W. (1977). Conceptual Notes, toward a definition of organizational politics. Academy of Management Review (October).

  • McAllister, G. (2004) Doctoral thesis on the merger of two large law firms using neo-institutional analysis. The Australian Expert Group in Industry Studies, Sydney.

  • Meiwald, R. D. (1970). The Greatly Exaggerated Death of Bureaucracy. California Management Review. Winter, 65–69.

  • Meyer J. and Rowan B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills C.W. (1967). Power skills in use: Corporate entreprenuers in action. Politics & People: The Collected Essays of C. Wright Mills. Oxford University Press, Power

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

  • Mintzberg H. (1990). The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 11: 171–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, January–February.

  • Mullins L. (1993). Management and Organizational Behaviour. Pittman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, K. (2001). Kemp claims uni is over funded. The Daily Telegraph. 22 March 2001, Sydney: 8.

  • Murray P. (2002). Power, Politics and Knowledge Materials. UWS Press, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • NationalUnionof Students (NUS) (2001). Roar (Orientation Week Edition). NUS Publication, New South Wales

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker M. (2002). In praise of bureaucracy: Weber, organization, ethics. Management Learning, 33(1): 130–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters T. and Waterman R. (1987). In Search of Excellence: Lesson’s from America’s Best Run Companies. Harper & Row, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters T. (1997). The Circle of Innovation: You Can’t Shrink Your Way to Greatness. Alfred A Knopf, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow C. (1967). A Framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review 32: 194–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow C. (1970). Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View. Tavistock, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J. (1992). Understanding power in organizations. California Management Review, Winter.

  • Pugh D.S. and Hickson D.J. (1969). The context of organization structures. Administrative Science Quarterly 14: 91–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh D.S. (1984). Organization Theory. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranson S., Hinings C.R. and Greenwood R. (1980). The structuring of organization structures. Administrative Science Quarterly 25: 1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vice-Chancellor. (2000). An Invitation to University of Troubled Times Students. Letter to the students. 29 June 2000.

  • Vice-Chancellor (2001a). What Kind of University? Internet.

  • Vice-Chancellor (2001b). Choices for the future: Towards a UTT Strategic Plan 2002–2006. Internet.

  • Robbins S.P. and Barnwell N. (1994). Organisation Theory in Australia. Prentice Hall, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins S., Millet B., Cacioppe R. and Waters-Marsh T. (1998). Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saul, P. (1997). Managing Change: The Many Faces of Change. Australian Human Resource Management Journal. Accessed at: <http://www.une.edu.ve/jmartine/Managing%20Change.%20The%20many%20faces%20of%20change.htm> (21/01/05).

  • Schein E.H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(2): 229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz M. (2001). Management as the spirit of the Modern Age. Journal of Business Ethics 29(1): 189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherer P.D. and Lee K. (2002). Institutional change in large law firms: A resource dependency and institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 102–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson V. (1961). Modern Organizations. Knopf, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson P. and McHugh D. (1995). Work organizations: A Critical Introduction. Macmillan Business, London

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Troubled Times, UTT Newfoundland looks at faculty restructure, May 1997. Internet. Accessed 19 March 2001.

  • University of Troubled Times, The Shape of the Future – a structure for UTT in the 21st Century, October 1999.

  • University of Troubled Times, Frequently Asked Questions. Internet. Accessed 16 March 2001.

  • University of Troubled Times, UTT: The Callista Project.Internet. Accessed 19 March 2001.

  • Woodward J. (1965). Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward J. (1970). Industrial Organization: Behaviour and Control. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. De Brennan & Co. Neutral Bay, NSW, 2089, Australia

    Sebastian De Brennan

Authors
  1. Sebastian De Brennan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian De Brennan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Brennan, S. Out by More than One Degree: Politics and Organizational Change Within an Australian University. Educ Res Policy Prac 5, 73–100 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-005-5061-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-005-5061-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation