Neoliberal Awakenings: A Case Study of University Leaders’ Competitive Advantage Sensemaking
Market principles in higher education seem to have generated a neoliberal awakening. A corollary of such market principles is the need for universities to develop effective strategies that give them competitive advantage. Thus, competitive advantage represents a key construct of neoliberalism, where the focus in this paper is on how university leaders, therefore, make sense of competitive advantage. Based on a comparative and instrumental case study using two close rival universities in England, three sensemaking dilemmas emerge as core elements of how university leaders conceptualize competitive advantage. The first one is about environmental fit or misfit. The second one is about seizing or missing opportunities. The third one is about finding a frame of reference. These dilemmas are valuable as they provide a possibility to understand what competitive advantage means in higher education, where the standard tenets of the concept, such as higher profits, might not always be helpful.
Keywordsleadership sensemaking neoliberalism marketization competitive advantage
The author would like to thank King’s College London, and The Baroness Wolf of Dulwich Professor Alison Wolf CBE for all her advice and support during this project.
- Abreu Pederzini, G. (2017) ‘Leaders, power, and the paradoxical position’, Journal of Management Inquiry, first published online 17 March doi: 10.1177/1056492617696891.
- Beloff, M. (1968) The plate glass universities, New Jersey, USA: Associated University Presses Inc.Google Scholar
- Clark, B.R. (1983) The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Freedman, L. (2013) Strategy: A History, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Ghemawat, P. (1986) ‘Sustainable advantage’, Harvard Business Review 64(5): 53–58.Google Scholar
- Golden, B.R. (1992) ‘The past is the past or is it: the use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy’, Academy of Management Journal 35(4): 848–860.Google Scholar
- Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (2005) ‘Strategic intent’, Harvard Business Review 83(7/8): 148–161.Google Scholar
- Henkel, M. (2000) Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
- Hodgkinson, G.P. (1997) ‘The cognitive analysis of competitive structures: a review and critique’, Human Relations 50(6): 625–654.Google Scholar
- Langley, A. and Abdallah, C. (2016) ‘Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management’, in G. Dagnino and M. Cinici (eds.) Research Methods for Strategic Management, London: Routledge, pp. 137–166.Google Scholar
- Phillips, E.M. and Pugh, D.S. (2010) How To Get a Ph.D., Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Porter, M.E. (1996) ‘What is strategy?’, Harvard Business Review 74(6): 61–78.Google Scholar
- Shattock, M. (2010) Managing Successful Universities, Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Stake, R.E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
- Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar