Introduction

Universities are generally considered to play a significant role in expanding knowledge through research and sharing it through teaching. However, certain barriers may impede these essential activities, negatively impacting the environment in higher education institutions (HEIs) and potentially slowing down economic progress (Drucker & Goldstein, 2007). One of the key obstacles is the growing bureaucratic and administrative burden placed on academic staff. When they are required to invest more time and energy in supplementary tasks such as paperwork, reports, and surveys, their attention and focus on their primary responsibilities—namely teaching and research—diminish. International studies indicate that while a certain amount of administrative support is necessary and beneficial for the functioning of universities (Andrews et al., 2017; Tran & Dollery, 2022), many developed countries currently seem to be experiencing a phenomenon known as “bureaucratization” (Andersson et al., 2023; Gornitzka et al., 1998; Woelert, 2021). This refers to the gradual increase in administrative burdens at the expense of universities’ core missions. Regrettably, there is a lack of research specifically focused on bureaucratization in post-communist countries with a four-decade history of state-controlled bureaucracy in their economies, societies, and academic institutions. Many older academics from Czechia, who have lived through communism, report that modern university bureaucracy reminds them, in certain aspects, of the “bad old days.”

Over the past few decades, the Czech university environment has undergone similar changes to those documented in research on universities in other higher education systems in Central and Eastern Europe and the rest of the world (Simonová & Antonowicz, 2006; Leisyte, 2014; Aarrevaara et al., 2021; Zelvys et al., 2021). These changes include a transfer of control from the state to universities (Christensen, 2011; Gornitzka et al., 1998), the professionalization of university management (Gornitzka & Larsen, 2004; Stage, 2020; Teichler, 2021), the adoption of new technologies for data collection (Dormann et al., 2019; Kyvik, 2013), and increasing pressure for diversified financing through grants and subsidy programs (Ramirez & Christensen, 2013). However, the literature has not given sufficient attention to the theoretical and empirical impacts of these processes on the administrative burden of universities, leading to limited knowledge on the subject (Woelert, 2023). For instance, although the strengthening of universities’ formal autonomy in accreditation reduces reporting costs to national authorities, it simultaneously necessitates the implementation of internal quality control systems, which in turn increase the administrative burden (CSVŠ, 2018). While new technologies enable process automation and facilitate data acquisition, they also exhibit Jevons’ paradox (Jevons, 1865), whereby reduced costs and improved efficiency result in increased demand for their usage by administrative and managerial staff. Consequently, these staff members can more easily transfer administrative demands onto teachers and researchers (Bozeman & Youtie, 2020). Hence, it is essential to explore how these changes are reflected in the administrative burden of universities and the extent to which university bureaucratization is occurring in post-communist countries.

Using the example of the Czech Republic as a post-communist country, this study fills a gap in research on the administrative burden of academic staff and asks the following questions:

  1. I.

    To what extent, if any, is the process of university bureaucratization occurring in the Czech Republic?

  2. II.

    According to Czech academics, what factors contribute to the increase in their administrative burden?

To examine these questions, we conducted a survey among a representative sample of 1117 academic staff members from 26 Czech HEIs. The survey aimed to assess their workload and gather their opinions on various aspects of administrative burden. Following international standards, we analyzed the distribution of their working time among research, teaching, administration, and other activities. This analysis helped us identify groups experiencing the highest administrative burden and enabled a comparison with international data. Additionally, we investigated whether administrative demands have increased over time and explored potential factors contributing to such changes. To gain deeper insights into the positive and negative aspects of university bureaucracy, we experimentally examined academics’ views on four main topics: (1) general administration at universities and its impact, (2) grant and subsidy programs, (3) university management structure, and (4) digitization and new technologies. Moreover, the framing method allowed us to understand whether university bureaucracy more closely resembles the traditional Weberian definition or Niskanen’s public choice definition. The results of our research confirm that bureaucracy and administrative burden pose genuine challenges for Czech universities, partially hindering their ability to prioritize the crucial activities of research and teaching.

Literature review

Scholars such as Weber, Merton, Wilson, Mises, Tullock, and Niskanen, among others, also dealt with the phenomenon of bureaucracy, and its definition, conditions, and consequences. Weber (1978) viewed bureaucracy as a manifestation of modernity and rationality. Distinguished from earlier forms of bureaucratic power, bureaucracy was characterized by well-defined rules, legality, and hierarchical structure, which curtailed arbitrary actions by officials. Merton (1940) further expanded Weber’s concept, highlighting the problematic nature of rigid adherence to rules, while Wilson (1989) emphasized the autonomy of authorities as crucial for the efficient achievement of bureaucratic goals. Mises introduced an economic theory of bureaucracy, closely linking it with government offices and institutions. From Mises’ perspective, bureaucracy is neither inherently good nor bad but rather a method of organizing aimed at specific goals, such as providing goods and services, without economic calculation based on profit (Mises, 1944). Tullock (1965) and Niskanen (1971) built upon Mises’ economic perspective. Tullock (1965) emphasized the institutional setting of bureaucracy, pointing out that bureaucrats, driven by their self-interest, may not prioritize the most efficient resource management practices. Niskanen (1971) incorporated individually acting bureaucrats into a model of bureaucracy in which rational behavior (when profit maximization is not the objective) entails maximizing the office’s budget.

From an economic point of view, administration can be viewed as an activity that contributes to both the revenues and costs of an organization. A well-functioning university, much like any modern organization, relies on administration to ensure smooth operations and to enable rational management based on empirical data (Andrews et al., 2017; Tran & Dollery, 2022). However, from an economic standpoint, administration also incurs financial and temporal costs associated with developing procedural methods, adhering to them, conducting oversight, collecting and analyzing data, reporting, and other related activities (Christensen, 2011; Martin, 2016; Croucher & Woelert, 2022). When analyzing the extent of administrative processes at universities, it is important to bear in mind that the primary goal of universities is not to achieve economic profit. Therefore, the efficiency of university management cannot be measured in the same way as with profit-oriented entities. However, this does not mean that universities are not subject to competitive pressure.

In recent decades, globalization has intensified international competition among universities, resulting in their transformation and integration into “globalized knowledge production markets” (Aarrevaara et al., 2021). According to Krücken (2019), both universities and academics are facing multiple competitions, e.g., in terms of research and teaching prestige, raising funds, student enrollment, quality of facilities, and other factors. A common strategy to enhance these aspects is to maximize the university’s budget (Andersson et al., 2023), which can be a significant challenge (Tight, 2010). Furthermore, fund providers often require thorough formalized reporting on the university’s financial management, and funding may be contingent upon the implementation of new processes and regulations (Power, 1997; Ramirez & Christensen, 2013). In response to these requirements, universities aim to increase transparency, productivity, and accountability (Bentley & Kyvik, 2012). However, these efforts can also increase the administrative burden. Bozeman and Youtie (2020) states that the very term administrative burden captures the essence of the problem; it involves extensive rules and regulations that impose a burden on those who have to deal with them. Following Woelert (2023), we argue that individuals as well as organizations incur costs at multiple levels, ranging from financial and time-related to psychological.

Factors contributing to the bureaucratization of universities can also be categorized into (1) external factors, which respond to changes in conditions beyond the reach and power of the university, e.g., government policy, legislation, and external funding, and (2) internal factors, such as self-imposed rules, requirements, and procedures (Martin, 2016). For instance, the implementation of new computing technology or digitalization represents an internal factor (Bozeman & Youtie, 2020). The literature suggests that changes in external conditions have played a significant role in recent decades (Dobbins & Knill, 2014; Stage, 2020). Gornitzka et al. (1998) emphasize the combination of external and internal factors, such as the increase in student numbers and the shift to a decentralized and deregulated system, which necessitates stronger administrative processes to ensure institutional accountability. Similarly, Christensen (2011) concludes that university reforms influenced by New Public Management (NPM) have led to increased autonomy in management and decision-making, but have also resulted in heightened bureaucratic burdens, control systems, and pressure for diversified funding.

The adoption of a new management approach is linked to the transformation of universities into hierarchical organizations resembling large commercial entities, emphasizing managerial governance. NPM reforms (Bentley & Kyvik, 2012; Power, 1997) have played a crucial role in many universities worldwide in this regard. These reforms aimed to grant universities greater autonomy, enhance efficiency, and adopt a customer-centric approach towards students (Steenkamp & Roberts, 2020). Power (1997) highlights the concept of the audit society, emphasizing rationality, metrics, efficiency, and extensive data reporting. As a result, power dynamics within universities have shifted, with university leadership gaining more authority, financial control, and professional influence, while the traditional emphasis on academic autonomy has weakened (Christensen, 2011). In the context of post-communist countries, western policies have significantly influenced national reforms, leading to the strengthening of university management and influence of external stakeholders (Dobbins & Leisyte, 2014), increased academic productivity (Teichler, 2021), heightened competition (Kováts, 2018), and diminished collegial decision-making within universities (Zelvys et al., 2021). Moreover, such policies amplify institutional complexity, resulting in the expansion of administrative units, standardization of processes, and a more bureaucratic operational style in universities (Kováts, 2018). These changes influence the academic labor market and working conditions among academics differently based on contract types, disciplinary affiliations, or gender as demonstrated by Vohlídalová (2021) for the Czech Republic.

According to Woelert (2023), the administrative burden in the case of Australia is directly attributable to the managerial approach to higher education governance. Another potential downside of the professionalization and institutionalization of processes is the potential loss of academic freedoms, which can result in demoralization among academic staff (Sutton, 2017). In this regard, Teichler (2021) highlights, among other things, the process of university homogenization, which narrows the space for academic individuality and variation in different curricular approaches. Ylijoki (2005) explores how more experienced or older academics in Finland may romanticize the past when discussing the university environment. In that study, academics offer personal accounts of a progressively worsening situation (Ylijoki, 2005), which is informative when interpreting data from our survey.

A frequently mentioned factor in interviews and literature is the preparation of research grant applications and their subsequent administration. Herbert et al. (2013) highlight the emergence of opportunity costs resulting from time wasted on unsuccessful grant applications (up to 80%) that do not produce any benefits for researchers or society in Australia. Barham et al. (2014) find that, in the United States between 1979 and 2005, there was a significant decrease in the time academics dedicated to research due to the increasing time spent on administrative tasks associated with grants and research. Similarly, Bozeman and Youtie (2020) suggest that some faculties invest disproportionately more time in grant preparation and research administration than they do in teaching and student development. Furthermore, Anderson and Slade (2016) observe that grant preparation consumes more time than before, burdening academics and fostering feelings of dissatisfaction. For these reasons, we include the topic of grant administration and funding programs in our survey.

The impact of digitization and automation on administrative demands can have both positive and negative consequences that may not be immediately apparent. While these processes can free up capacity and reduce the necessary time for repetitive tasks in some cases, they can also lead to unintended negative outcomes (Dormann et al., 2019; Kyvik, 2013). Maassen and Stensaker (2019) highlight aspects that can hinder the functionality of hierarchical management systems during university transformations, including imperfect digital control and reporting systems. Additionally, Bozeman and Youtie (2020) suggest that while “robotic bureaucracy” may not fall under the concept of red tape typically imposed on universities by external institutions, it can still contribute to increased administrative burdens as an internal factor. Therefore, it is crucial to empirically examine the significance and impact of new technologies on administrative demands.

In terms of academic workload, the primary activities of academic staff traditionally revolve around teaching and research (Houston et al., 2006; Martin, 2016; Woelert, 2021), with additional responsibilities such as administration and service. Tight (2010) highlights the increasing pressure on academics to excel in all aspects of their work: teaching more effectively, publishing in prestigious journals, and meticulously documenting and reporting their activities. Both Houston et al. (2006) and Tight (2010) agree that academics carry out administration at the expense of other activities. Barham et al. (2014) and Lyons and Ingersoll (2010) further suggest that administrative duties and bureaucratic processes contribute to a decline in time dedicated to scientific research, leading to growing dissatisfaction among academics, as identified by Kyvik (2013).

Institutional context

Until 1990, Czechoslovakia was for four decades governed by the totalitarian Communist Party. The higher education system was part of a centrally planned and dirigiste economy, characterized by a high degree of bureaucracy (Kwiek, 2014). The Central Committee of the Communist Party made decisions regarding the focus of individual faculties, study programs, and the number of students based on the number of available job positions. Research activities were conducted in research institutes instead of universities. This, coupled with the absence of academic freedom and autonomy, hindered the realization of quality research and innovation. Additionally, the universities were entirely dependent on the state budget (Matějů & Simonová, 2003).

After 1990, a state-controlled accreditation commission was established to help transform higher education, eliminate Marxist-Leninist ideology, accommodate the high demand for higher education, and decentralize the university environment (van der Wende & Westerheijden, 2003). Nevertheless, the influence of the Communist Party on the Czech higher education system remained very strong even several years after the Velvet Revolution (Weldon, 2003). Starting from 1998, the establishment of private universities was allowed (Matějů & Simonová, 2003), although their share of students remains low (9.2%) even today (MEYS, 2023a). In this regard, the reform of HEIs differed from Poland’s approach, which allowed the establishment of a large number of private HEIs shortly after the revolution (Simonová & Antonowicz, 2006). A significant milestone was entry into the European Union in 2004 and the opportunity to draw financial resources from EU structural and investment funds.

Another step was the strengthening of quality assurance in higher education. In this respect, the OECD (2009) highlighted the mistrust of universities and academics in the implementation of quality assurance systems and concerns about the increase in administrative burden. Nevertheless, in 2016, a reform of the Czech higher education system took place, providing universities with a higher degree of autonomy in the accreditation process. As a result, part of the responsibility, obligations, and administrative burden shifted from the original accreditation commission to the universities. Internal quality assessment systems were implemented, including the establishment of internal evaluation boards, regular preparation and updating of internal evaluation reports, and administration of internal study program accreditations.

The shift towards managerialism in the administration of Czech universities has evolved gradually, primarily through initiatives, internationalization, and the dissemination of insights gained from foreign internships or conferences, rather than through NPM reforms. The Czech Republic, mirroring trends in post-communist countries, is increasingly pushing for internationalization and scientific excellence. This has led individual faculties to implement new regulations. Universities and their academics today acquire funding through diverse providers, including the state budget based on research output and number of students, grants from two research agencies, ministry grants, projects provided by the European Union, and others. As each of them imposes different formal and factual requirements, the complexity of financing increases, leading to the fragmentation of the entire system.

The partial transition from national funding for HEIs to financing from European structural and investment funds, supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, has been criticized by the Czech Rectors Conference. One of the impacts of this transition is a change in the work responsibilities of many academics, who increasingly find themselves also serving as managers or administrators of various development projects. Furthermore, according to consulting firm EY (2022), projects supported by the European Union are recognized for their high administrative demands. Paradoxically, the ministry listed the reduction of the administrative burden and excessive bureaucratization of university staff as one of the six priority goals in the Strategic Plan for Higher Education Institutions for 2021 (MEYS, 2020).

In Czechia, HEIs are categorized into two types: universities and non-university institutions. These institutions can be further classified as state, public or private. In 2021, there were 276,422 individuals studying at 26 public Czech universities, accounting for 90.8% of all students (MEYS, 2023b). These universities employed 18,587 academics reported as full-time equivalent. For every academic staff member in public universities, there were 14.9 students and 1.3 non-academic staff members (MEYS, 2023a). Compared to the OECD average (39.9%), only 26.5% of the Czech population aged 25–64 held a higher education degree (OECD, 2022).

Based on the literature review, we formulated the following research hypotheses:

  • H1: According to academics, the administrative burden at Czech universities has increased over time.

  • H2: External factors (e.g., government policy and legislation, external funding) increase the administrative burden of Czech HEIs more than internal ones (e.g., university management policy).

  • H3: The negative aspects of bureaucratic management outweigh the positives in the eyes of academics.

Research methodology and data

Data collection for this study was secured through the Median Ltd. online platform and took place during March–May 2023. A request for cooperation was extended to all public and private universities in the Czech Republic (Table 1). Of 148 faculties in public universities operating in the Czech Republic (representing a total of 17,644 academics reported as full-time equivalentFootnote 1), 66 (44.6%) participated in the survey (representing 7831 academics reported as full-time equivalent). In addition, of 30 private HEIs, 9 participated in the research (30%). A total of 2486 surveys were distributed, of which 1280 were not completed, 80 did not pass the filtering questions, and 9 were excluded for indicating weekly working hours greater than 90 h, leaving 1117 (44.9%) questionnaires completed and included in the analysis. On average, the survey took 7 min and 31 s to complete. Our sample is representative of the academic staff population of Czech HEIs in terms of gender and formal qualification (see Table 2). The respondents were, on average, 46.5 years old, 39.8% of them were women, 51.2% held a Ph.D., 96.1% were working only at a public university, and 37.2% identified themselves as a manager (rector, vice rector, dean, vice dean, department head, deputy head of department, secretary, etc.).

Table 1 Descriptive statistics: covariates
Full size table
Table 2 Comparison of selected characteristics of the sample and Czech HEIs’ academic staff
Full size table

The survey was divided into four parts. ln the first part, we gathered information about the respondents. ln the second part, we asked about the number of hours per week spent on (1) teaching, (2) research, (3) administrative tasks related to teaching and research, and (4) other non-teaching and non-research activities (see supplementary materials). ln the third part, we examined how the administrative burden changes over time according to respondents, what the sources of the administrative burden are, and at which type of university (public or private) respondents perceive a higher administrative burden. ln the final part, we randomly divided respondents into 3 groups, framed them and then tested their evaluation of statements describing positive and negative effects of bureaucratic management in universities.

The concept of framing, as defined by Entman (1993), involves the selection and emphasis of a specific aspect of reality that supports how a researcher wants to present a problem or situation. A frame can be conveyed through a few words or complete sentences. Usually, individuals are divided into groups that are exposed to different frames. The disparity in responses between groups are referred to as the framing effect. In our case, respondents were randomly divided into three similarly sized groups: Weber group (N = 355), Niskanen group (N = 389), and control group (N = 382). Each of the two treatment groups was shown a different text highlighting the main aspects of bureaucratic management inspired by the authors mentioned, i.e., Weber and Niskanen, while the control group was not shown any of the texts. Respondents then rated the extent to which they agreed with the text on a five-point Likert scale. Through framing, we sought to verify which group would exhibit greater similarity in their responses to the control group. Simultaneously, we aimed to determine the extent to which it is possible to influence academics’ opinions on the benefits and costs of administration and how firmly these opinions are already embedded in their everyday reality.

Weber group frame:

Bureaucracy, according to M. Weber, is an expression of rationality. It is the only possible way of governing a modern society at the state level. Bureaucracy, as the sole form of government administration, prevents arbitrary actions by officials through the establishment of universally applicable formal rules in the form of laws and regulations.

Niskanen group frame:

According to W. Niskanen, bureaucracy is inefficient, and its systematic expansion is caused by the bureaucrats themselves, who continually seek to maximize the budget, importance, and agenda of their own office by formulating new rules and regulations.

Both frames are of roughly the same length and emotional color, differing only in the way they characterize bureaucracy. In addition, after exposure to the frames, respondents rated 8 statements from four topics formulated on the basis of research and interviews (see Table 3). We were interested in which definition of bureaucracy, according to academics, better describes the university environment in the Czech Republic. The other objective was to determine whether a positive or negative description of bureaucracy can influence its short-term perception or whether a long-term opinion based on practical experience prevails.

Table 3 Oppositional pairs of statements
Full size table

Empirical research on bureaucracy has its limitations. It can be approached either qualitatively through interviews (Dormann et al., 2019) or quantitatively through statistical and econometric analysis of survey data (Alonso et al., 2022; Barham et al., 2014; Bentley & Kyvik, 2012; Kyvik, 2013), or by utilizing official statistics (Andersson et al., 2023; Gumport & Pusser, 1995). Each method has its limitations: official statistics often lack necessary detail or oversimplify the issue, while surveys may be influenced by biases and are sensitive to how questions are formulated. For example, if the survey is primarily completed by respondents with strong opinions on the matter, findings may overestimate the investigated effect. To mitigate this risk, we also provided financial motivation in the form of an opportunity to gain CZK 1000 (equivalent to EUR 40) for 15 randomly selected participants. In the context of the representativeness of our sample, compared to the population, there is a slightly higher representation of academics in the field of social sciences and humanities, while academics in medical fields and STEM are relatively less represented. However, in our opinion, this does not diminish the informative value of the sample. While there may be differences in workload between groups based on disciplines, in the case of responses related to bureaucratization, we do not identify significant differences. Data obtained on workload through the questionnaire vary between the subjective estimates of respondents and the systematic measurement of their own workload. However, this does not affect the possibility of comparing individual groups with each other. Our research did not specifically address the Third Mission of universities, which encompasses knowledge transfer and commercialization endeavors, often cited as “a contribution to society” (Compagnucci & Spigarelli, 2020). Additional external engagements, such as sharing knowledge with the public or participating in commercial projects linked to university initiatives, are on the rise among scholars, as highlighted by Pekşen et al. (2021). When activities pertaining to the Third Mission are directly tied to an employment contract, we categorize them in our questionnaire under “Other Tasks.” However, activities not directly financed by the university are excluded from our survey. In the experimental part of the research, the intention was not to perfectly capture all aspects of the theoretical concepts of Max Weber and William Niskanen, but rather, to highlight both positive and negative aspects of bureaucracy and rely on the names of authors that could evoke a stronger response from the respondents.

Results

The distribution of the working time of different groups of academic staff is described in Table 4. The average Czech academic works 43.6 h per week, divided between teaching (almost 17 h, 39% of the total time), research (11.5 h, 26%), administrative activities directly related to teaching and research (over 8 h, 19%), and other activities such as development projects and management administration (7 h, 16%). In total, academics spend more than 15 h per week (35% of their time) on administrative and management tasks. They often work overtime, especially if they are full-time employees (46.6 h), professors (48.2 h), in a managerial position (over 47.8 h), or working simultaneously at a public and private university (48.3 h).

Table 4 Distribution of academic workload between tasks by group
Full size table

A comparison of the administrative burden between different groups shows that especially those academics who hold one of the managerial positions spend almost twice as much time (10.6 h) on administrative, managerial, and other activities than non-managers. This result is also supported by the regression analysis (see Table 5), according to which a managerial role is associated with 8.4 h of additional workload to teaching and research (p < 0.001), ceteris paribus. Professors and associate professors, compared to lecturers and assistants, as well as men compared to women, are more burdened by administrative and other tasks. All else being held constant, professors spend 6 h more on administration and other activities compared to assistants and lecturers. Inconsistent results are found for the experience and age factors, respectively. Although at first glance it appears that older and more experienced workers face a higher workload, when regression analysis is used, it seems that this is not the case. Rather, 10 years of experience appears to reduce the expected time for administration and other activities by 1 h, ceteris paribus. Compared to academics in the social sciences, academics from other disciplines spend significantly more time on administrative tasks.

It is clear from Table 4 that there are other differences between the groups in the allocation of time between activities. Women spend significantly more time teaching (19.2 h, 45%) compared to men (15.4 h, 35%), as do academics working in both private and public HEIs (19.6 h, 41%) compared to those exclusively employed at one type of institution. The reported differences in the teaching-related workload between men and women closely resemble those documented in Vohlídalová (2021). Professors and associate professors, on the other hand, spend the least amount of time teaching and more time on research and administrative and other activities. In addition to professors, young workers (28%), men (28%), and non-managers (30%) spend more time on scientific activities compared to the whole sample (26%).

Table 5 Linear regression models
Full size table

Hypothesis H1 “According to academics, the administrative burden at Czech universities has increased over time” was confirmed. An overwhelming majority of academics (84.9%) believe that the demands of administrative management have increased during their career (time spent filling in various reports, documents, learning new procedures, working with new software, entering or managing documents in information systems). Figure 1 compares the assessment of the evolution of administrative demands by age and management position. Managers over 45 years of age perceive the increase in complexity most strongly, with 183 (74.7%) respondents indicating that there has been a significant increase in bureaucratic burden over time. In contrast, only 3 (1.2%) people in this group perceived a decrease in complexity. The results are almost identical when experience is replaced by age.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Change of administrative management complexity. Source: own research

Full size image

This may be due to several factors. For example, older and more experienced academics are able to track the evolution of the administrative burden over a longer period, which enables them to put the current situation into a broader context. Alternatively, they may be more influenced by so-called academic nostalgia (Ylijoki, 2005), a partly romanticized notion or feeling that academia used to be less stressful, less chaotic and more satisfying.

Most academics (45.4%) think that the growth in administrative requirements is caused equally by external and internal factors, while 22.8% of respondents attribute the growth more to external factors, 9.8% to internal factors, and 19.8% could not answer the question. Those who face the highest administrative burden, i.e., managers and professors, confirm the predominant role of external factors (40.7%) compared to internal factors (12.1%) as shown in Fig. 2. Hypothesis H2 “External factors (e.g. government policy and legislation, external funding) increase the administrative burden of Czech HEIs more than internal ones (e.g. university management policy)” was partially confirmed.

Fig. 2
figure 2

External or internal factors behind the administrative growth. Source: own research

Full size image

In the final phase of the study, the participants were randomly assigned to three groups. Two treatment groups were presented with a brief text that provided a rephrased explanation of the concept of bureaucracy based on the perspectives of Weber and Niskanen. To determine which frame better describes university bureaucracy, we asked respondents in the treatment groups to indicate their level of agreement with the presented text on a five-point Likert scale. They were more likely to agree with Niskanen’s description of bureaucracy (N = 384; agreement = 74.2%; mean rating = 1.99; SD = 0.93) compared to Weber’s description (N = 353; agreement = 40.8%; mean rating = 2.93; SD = 1.04), as confirmed by a non-parametric Wilcox rank-sum test (p = 0.000).

We then examined the framing effects for eight statements consisting of four oppositional pairs described in Table 3. The application of the frames did not affect respondents’ ratings on most statements. A test of the means of all three groups rejected the hypothesis of homogeneity only for T1N (p = 0.031) and T4P (p = 0.082) statements. However, the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test did not confirm this result at the 5% significance level for either T1N (K-W test with ties; p = 0.090) or T4P (K-W test with ties; p = 0.104). For other questions, there was no difference between the ratings of respondents from different groups.

To assess whether academics are inclined towards positive or negative aspects at a general level, we aggregated the evaluation of statements into two indices. These show that, on average, respondents are more likely to agree with negative statements compared to positive ones (mean rating of 2.41 vs. 2.86). This is confirmed by partial comparisons of statements at the level of themes (see Fig. 3). The exception is the topic of digitization, where the positive statement T4P “Digitalization in higher education simplifies work duties and saves time” slightly outweighed the negative statement T4N “The implementation of new information technologies at universities often leads to increased time-consuming routine administrative tasks.” The strongest agreement was elicited by T2N’s statement that “Rules of subsidy programs and grants are very often strict and extensive and generate additional administrative burden for university staff”, followed by T1N’s statement that “Academics have to spend more and more time on document administration at the expense of the quality of teaching and research.” Academics least agreed with the sentence that “Universities often adopt a corporate management style, which makes their management more efficient and leads to higher quality teaching and research.” The results of the experimental part of the research show that hypothesis H3 “The negative aspects of bureaucratic management outweigh the positives in the eyes of academic workers” was confirmed.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparisons of statements. Source: own research

Full size image

Discussion

Our research on bureaucracy and the administrative burden in Czech universities provides evidence of trends identified internationally. A majority of Czech academics (84.9%) report an increase in the demands of administrative management in universities. This is often attributed to new regulations and forms, a concern also raised by Woelert (2023) in other countries. The administration associated with grants and development projects is identified as a significant factor contributing to the growth of bureaucracy by Czech academics. While some academics acknowledge that detailed rules can ensure proper allocation of funds to desired activities, most of them recognize the substantial amount of valuable time consumed by creating the required documentation and audit trail, such as detailed timesheets, attendance records, and meeting minutes. In interviews, Czech academics often mention that entirely new project departments are being established at their universities, focusing on the preparation, management, and administration of projects and grants. Nevertheless, the time spent by academics on project administration continues to increase. The question thus arises as to what extent this method of financing universities is effective. For example, Herbert et al. (2013) demonstrate that the process of creating unsuccessful grant applications in medical research in Australia results in the loss of thousands of cumulative hours. This has led to a growing sense of dissatisfaction, as noted by Anderson and Slade (2016) in the United States.

According to our research, a managerial approach to governance is another factor contributing to the growing administrative demands. This aligns with existing literature that highlights the shift towards hierarchical structures and corporate managerialism in universities (Bentley & Kyvik, 2012; Croucher & Woelert, 2022; Maassen & Stensaker, 2019; Martin, 2016). The academic staff, including managers, do not believe that allocating more resources to administration improves quality measurement or enhances managerial efficiency in universities. Instead, they perceive that the creation of new managerial positions often comes at the expense of research and teaching, as pointed out by Lyons and Ingersoll (2010). This paradoxical situation arises in the context of the pressure for excellent research (Pietilä, 2014; Yang et al., 2022). In the context of an extensive international research project on the Academic Profession in the Knowledge-Based Society (APIKS), Huang et al. (2022) also discuss the increasing political and managerial pressure in many countries to strengthen the attention given to research. In the Czech context, this is reflected in the adoption of a new methodology for rewarding universities, which significantly strengthens the importance of publishing in top international journals.

Our findings are consistent with Tight (2010), who notes that academics are expected to be better educators, publish more research articles, and properly report and evaluate everything. Consequently, academic staff face an expanding workload, often with non-academic tasks (Steenkamp & Roberts, 2020), leaving insufficient time for their primary activities of teaching and research (Houston et al., 2006). This results in overtime work, as confirmed by our research findings, although in the context of international research, the overall workload of Czech academics is generally lower on average (Table 6).

Table 6 Overview of academic workload in selected studies
Full size table

When comparing workloads to countries such as Finland, Italy, Germany, or Norway, where the average stands at 47.6 h/week (Bentley & Kyvik, 2012), the workload at Czech universities is lower, at 43.6 h/week. However, this comparison underscores that academics in the Czech Republic face one of the highest relative administrative burdens. They dedicate nearly 10% points more of their time to administrative and other tasks compared to their European counterparts (Bentley & Kyvik, 2012), resulting in 10% points less time for the core activities of teaching and research. Only Barham et al. (2014) for the United States and Bentley and Kyvik (2012) for Malaysia reported higher ratios of time spent on administrative tasks and other activities. A comparison of respondent groups revealed that, similar to Japan and Canada, professors in the Czech Republic also spend the most hours per week on administrative tasks (Kawaguchi et al., 2016; Nakano et al., 2021). Most Czech professors in our survey simultaneously hold managerial positions associated with higher administrative demands.

Excessive administrative burden at universities is a significant issue, as evidenced by the inclination of Czech academics towards Niskanen’s description of bureaucracy. Universities that effectively shield their academic staff from hypertrophic bureaucracy may gain a comparative advantage in the long term. In line with Gornitzka et al. (1998) and Martin (2016), 45.4% of Czech academics believe that the growth of administration is caused by both internal factors (e.g., efforts of university leaders to gather detailed information and improve management processes based on internal audits) and external ones (e.g., government policy and legislation, external funding). However, 22.8% attribute it mainly to external factors, while only 9.8% point to internal factors. Managers, in particular, strongly attribute the negative impacts to external factors. This is in line with the previously identified issue of bureaucracy in multi-source funding. Among internal factors, inadequate digitization is often voluntarily implemented by university leaders, as shown by Bozeman and Youtie (2020). Czech academics see the possible drawbacks of digitization and so-called robotic bureaucracy, though they also recognize the benefits of task simplification and time savings associated with digitalization. The aim of digitalization should be to reduce unnecessary paperwork rather than replacing it with “digital paperwork.”

Academics consistently raise concerns about excessive overtime work and a lack of time dedicated to their core responsibilities (Kyvik, 2013). While some of these negative attitudes may be attributed to “academic nostalgia” (Ylijoki, 2005), many are grounded in reality. The pervasive drive to quantify, measure, and audit every aspect of modern society (Power, 1997) can significantly increase pressure on academic staff and curtail their academic freedom (Sutton, 2017). This not only potentially raises stress levels among academics (Kenny, 2017), but also poses a risk to the essence of free inquiry and critical thinking within universities due to the imposition of various formal rules. Despite market-oriented reforms in many higher education systems in recent decades (Olssen & Peters, 2005), and despite increasing competition in higher education, as described by Krücken (2019), universities in most countries are still part of the public sector, which is inherently associated with the negatives of bureaucratic organization (Mises, 1944).

Future research could focus on evaluating specific factors of university bureaucratization, such as a comparison of different accreditation systems, the implementation of internal quality control, the role of distrust among stakeholders in higher education, or a comparison of different funding systems. Additionally, it would be appropriate to quantify the economic impact of increasing bureaucratization on the productivity of individual academics and universities. It would also be interesting to analyze to what extent detailed rules for scientific grants limit the flexibility of scientists and their creativity, and ultimately hinder the emergence of significant scientific discoveries.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations of our research, we can confirm the ongoing bureaucratization of HEIs in Czechia. This phenomenon is not the result of a single act but rather a combination of numerous internal and external factors, as highlighted by Gornitzka et al. (1998). The gradual and somewhat inconspicuous accumulation of rules and processes, implemented with good intentions and rationality, makes it challenging to fully grasp the bureaucratization of universities. Many regulations and procedures introduced to promote competition, efficiency, productivity, and autonomy in higher education have both positive and negative aspects. Czech academics strongly perceive the administrative burden as being associated with grants and development projects, which often discourages their pursuit. The process of internal accreditation, for example, has shifted some administrative tasks and responsibilities to the universities themselves. These processes often call for professionalization of administration within HEIs and a managerial approach to governance. However, academics believe that this professionalization comes at the expense of teaching and research, with debatable impacts on increasing efficiency. From an economic theory perspective, the question arises as to what extent a university can be managed like a business. Indeed, Mises (1944) warned that even successful business managers, when transitioning to a non-profit institution, often transform into bureaucrats.

Nevertheless, the majority of academics acknowledge the essential role played by administrative staff at universities, as their support enables academics to concentrate on their core mission. However, it is crucial to prevent the further escalation of administrative demands associated with various university activities. Digitization offers some hope by potentially increasing efficiency and saving significant amounts of time. However, university managers should not exploit these time savings as a justification to impose additional self-reporting requirements on academics, who already feel burdened by administrative tasks. Unlike administrators, academics lack the routine knowledge and training to handle more complex administrative tasks and as a result, carrying out such tasks causes academics to incur significant learning costs. Considering the experience of the centrally planned economy during communism—the bad old days—Czech academics are particularly sensitive to bureaucracy and administrative burdens, even in areas such as project administration, grants, and accreditations that aim to enhance the quality of universities. It is imperative to give proper attention to this issue and carefully analyze the individual processes that, when combined, can result in rigid bureaucracy. While bureaucracy can serve as a useful tool for organizing public services, it must never transform into a Kafkaesque maze of rules that suppresses individuality and freedom.