Advertisement

When Professional and Organizational Logics Collide: Balancing Invisible and Visible Colleges in Institutional Complexity

  • Fabian Hattke
  • Rick Vogel
  • Hendrik Woiwode
Chapter
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 47)

Abstract

Across times and disciplines, the co-evolution of formal organizations, or visible colleges, and informal groups, or invisible colleges, is a key feature and facilitator of development in scholarly fields. As systems of rationale, professional logics of invisible colleges and organizational logics of visible colleges are mutually complementary yet sometimes conflicting. New public management reforms collide with the established logics of both visible and invisible colleges. In particular, the increasing emphasis on output control in education policy and university governance is only to a limited extent complementary to traditional forms of process control in visible colleges and peer controls in invisible colleges. This article discusses the consequences of this institutional complexity for the balance of visible and invisible colleges and identifies potential imbalances. First, innovation dilemmas arise from the exploitation of pre-existing knowledge at the expense of exploration into new fields. Second, a struggle for organizational actorhood affects scholars’ ability for voluntary collective action. Third, identity conflicts refine scholars’ identification with visible and invisible colleges. We discuss ambidexterity, hybridization, and identity work as strategies for balancing conflicting institutional demands. We conclude by stressing the need for further integration of higher education research and science studies in order to enhance our understanding of the interdependencies between invisible and visible colleges.

Keywords

Institutional logics Higher education University governance Science studies Ambidexterity Hybridization Identity work 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant No. 01PY13014).

References

  1. Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2011). Organization outside organizations: The significance of partial organization. Organization, 18(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M. (2000). Social identity and the problem of loyalty in knowledge-intensive companies. Journal of Management Studies, 37(8), 1102–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvesson, M., & Benner, M. (2016). Higher education in the knowledge society: Miracle or mirage? In J. Frost, F. Hattke, & M. Reihlen (Eds.), Multilevel governance in universities (pp. 75–91). Dordrecht et al.: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 619–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alvesson, M., Lee Ashcraft, K., & Thomas, R. (2008). Identity matters: Reflections on the construction of identity scholarship in organization studies. Organization, 15(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Biesta, G. (2013). Balancing the core activities of universities: For a university that teaches. In R. Sugden, M. Valania, & J. R. Wilson (Eds.), Leadership and cooperation in academia. Reflecting on the roles and responsibilities of university faculty and management (pp. 32–42). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birnbaum, R. (2004). The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking back. New Directions for Higher Education, 127, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blaschke, S., Frost, J., & Hattke, F. (2014). Towards a micro foundation of leadership, governance, and management in universities. Higher Education, 68(5), 711–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bleiklie, I., & Lange, S. (2010). Competition and leadership as drivers in German and Norwegian university reforms. Higher Education Policy, 23(2), 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bögner, I., Petersen, J., & Kieser, A. (2016). Is it possible to assess progress in science? In J. Frost, F. Hattke, & M. Reihlen (Eds.), Multilevel governance in universities (pp. 215–231). Dordrecht et al.: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Bradshaw, P., & Fredette, C. (2009). Academic governance of universities: Reflections of a senate chair on moving from theory to practice and back. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(2), 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Broadbent, J. (2007). If you can’t measure it, how can you manage it? Management and governance in higher educational institutions. Public Money and Management, 27(3), 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Capano, G. (2011). Government continues to do its job. A comparative study of governance shifts in the higher education sector. Public Administration, 89(4), 1622–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Colyvas, J. A., & Powell, W. (2007). From vulnerable to venerated: The institutionalization of academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences. In M. Ruef & M. Lounsbury (Eds.), The sociology of entrepreneurship (Research in the sociology of organizations, Vol. 25, pp. 219–259). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cooke, P., & Kitagawa, F. (2013). From state to market via corruption: Universities in an era of privatization. In R. Sugden, M. Valania, & J. R. Wilson (Eds.), Leadership and cooperation in academia. Reflecting on the roles and responsibilities of university faculty and management (pp. 70–87). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Corwin, R. G. (1961). The professional employee: A study of conflict in nursing. American Journal of Sociology, 66(6), 604–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  23. de Boer, H. F., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007a). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New forms of governance in research organizations (pp. 137–152). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. de Boer, H. F., Enders, J., & Leisyte, L. (2007b). Public sector reform in Dutch higher education: The organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. de Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Science since Babylon. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Denis, J., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 809–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. (2007). Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: Rethinking theoretical frames. Human Relations, 60(1), 179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. DiMaggio, P., & Powel, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230–251.Google Scholar
  30. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Engwall, L. (2008). The university: A multinational corporation? In L. Engwall & D. Weaire (Eds.), The university in the market (pp. 9–21). London: Portland Press.Google Scholar
  32. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  33. Evetts, J. (2003). The sociological analysis of professionalism: Occupational change in the modern world. International Sociology, 18(2), 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 618–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  36. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In P. J. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Frost, J., & Hattke, F. (2013). University Commons: Kollektivressourcen als alternative Steuerungsperspektive für das Hochschulmanagement [University commons: Collective resources as alternative perspective for higher education management]. Hochschulmanagement, 8(2/3), 35–40.Google Scholar
  38. Frost, J., Osterloh, M., & Weibel, A. (2010). Governing knowledge work: Transactional and transformational solutions. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fusarelli, L. D. (2002). Tightly coupled policy in loosely coupled systems: Institutional capacity and organizational change. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 561–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gendron, Y. (2008). Constituting the academic performer: The spectre of superficiality and stagnation in academia. European Accounting Review, 17(1), 97–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Goodall, A. H. (2009). Socrates in the boardroom. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Graham, G. (2013). The university: A critical comparison of three ideal types. In R. Sugden, M. Valania, & J. R. Wilson (Eds.), Leadership and cooperation in academia. Reflecting on the roles and responsibilities of university faculty and management (pp. 1–16). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Understanding strategic change: The contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 1052–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39(1), 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1992). Context-dependent variation in social stereotyping 2: The relationship between frame of reference, self-categorization and accentuation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(1), 251–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hattke, F., Blaschke, S., & Frost, J. (2014). Governance logics in universities – Organizational change as oscillating conversations. In A. M. Pettigrew, E. Cornuel, & U. Hommel (Eds.), The institutional development of business schools (pp. 69–94). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hattke, F., Blaschke, S., & Frost, J. (2016). From voluntary collective action to organized collaboration? The provision of public goods in pluralistic organizations. In J. Frost, F. Hattke, & M. Reihlen (Eds.), Multilevel governance in universities (pp. 115–140). Dordrecht et al.: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Johnson, M. D., Morgeson, F. P., Ilgen, D. R., Meyer, C. J., & Lloyd, J. W. (2006). Multiple professional identities: Examining differences in identification across work-related targets. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 498–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jongbloed, B. (2013). Marketisation in higher education, Clark’s triangle and the essential ingredients of markets. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 110–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243–275). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2006). Where is the “me” among the “we”? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1031–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the university into an organizational actor. In G. Drori, J. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and organization (pp. 241–257). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  59. Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2010). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. (2002). Mimicry and the market: Adoption of a new organizational form. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 144–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lok, J. (2010). Institutional logics as identity projects. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1305–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In F. Geyer, J. Van, & D. Zeuwen (Eds.), Sociocybernetic paradoxes: Observation, control and evolution of self-steering systems (pp. 172–192). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Luhmann, N. (1992). Zwei Quellen der Bürokratisierung in Hochschulen [Two sources of bureaucracy in universities]. In A. Kieserling (Ed.), Universität als Milieu (pp. 74–79). Bielefeld: Haux.Google Scholar
  66. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Luhmann, N. (2003). Organization. In T. Bakken & T. Hernes (Eds.), Autopoietic organization theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s social systems perspective (pp. 31–52). Oslo: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  68. Lukka, K. (2010). The roles and effects of paradigms in accounting research. Management Accounting Research, 21(2), 110–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lutz, F. W. (1982). Tightening up loose coupling in organizations of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(4), 653–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lynch, K. (2006). Neo-liberalism and marketisation: The implications for higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Merchant, K. A. (2010). Paradigms in accounting research: A view from North America. Management Accounting Research, 21(2), 116–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Meyer, R., & Hammerschmid, G. (2006). Public management reform: An identity project. Public Policy and Administration, 21(1), 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Meyer, H.-D., & Rowan, B. (2006). Institutional analysis and the study of education. In H.-D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in higher education (pp. 1–32). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  76. Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5’s: A synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science, 26(3), 322–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Mora, J.-G. (2001). Governance and management in the new university. Tertiary Education and Management, 7(2), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Moses, I. (2007). Institutional autonomy revisited: Autonomy justified and accounted. Higher Education Policy, 20(3), 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mullins, N. C. (1973). Theories and theory groups in contemporary American sociology. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  80. OECD. (2013). Education at a glance 2013: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  81. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Olsen, J. P. (2007). The institutional dynamics of the European university. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration (pp. 25–53). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Osterloh, M. (2010). Governance by numbers. Does it really work in research? Analyse und Kritik, 32(2), 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013a). Embedded in hybrid contexts: How individuals in organizations respond to competing institutional logics. In M. Lounsbury (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations: Institutional logics in action part B (Vol. 39B, pp. 3–35). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013b). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Parker, M., & Jary, D. (1995). The McUniversity: Organization, management and academic subjectivity. Organization, 2(2), 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Peterson, M. W. (2007). The study of colleges and universities as organizations. In P. J. Gumport (Ed.), Sociology of higher education: Contributions and their Contexts (pp. 147–184). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to individuals’ identities. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 641–662.Google Scholar
  92. Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1(1), 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 276–298). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Ramarajan, L. (2014). Past, present and future research on multiple identities: Toward an intrapersonal network approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 589–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rauhvargers, A. (2014). Where are the global rankings leading us? An analysis of recent methodological changes and new developments. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Reihlen, M., & Wenzlaff, F. (2014). Institutional change of the German higher education system: From professional dominance to managed education. In A. Fayolle & D. Redford (Eds.), Handbook on the entrepreneurial university (pp. 112–135). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  98. Rivière, A., Boitier, M., Hattke, F., Reihlen, M., & Wenzlaff, F. (2014): Organizational responses to institutional complexity – Evidence from French and German Universities. In Proceedings of the 30th EGOS Colloquium, 3–5 Juli 2014, Rotterdam (NL).Google Scholar
  99. Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Salmi, J. (2007). Autonomy from the state vs responsiveness to markets. Higher Education Policy, 20(3), 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Schimank, U. (2005). “New Public Management” and the academic profession: Reflections on the German situation. Minerva, 43(4), 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Scott, R. W. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  103. Scott, W. (2005). Evolving professions: An institutional field approach. In T. Klatetzki & V. Tacke (Eds.), Organisation und Profession (pp. 119–141). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften / GWV Fachverlage GmbH.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  105. Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247.Google Scholar
  106. Shattock, M. (1999). Governance and management in universities: The way we live now. Journal of Education Policy, 14(3), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Shin, J. C., Toutkoushian, R. K., & Teichler, U. (Eds.). (2011). University rankings. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  108. Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1987). Identity work among the Homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of personal identities. American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), 1336–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Sorensen, J., & Sorensen, T. (1974). The conflict of professionals in bureaucratic organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(1), 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(35), 35–67.Google Scholar
  111. Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups. Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  112. Thornton, P., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. van Maanen, J. (2010). Identity work and control in occupational communities. In S. B. Sitkin, L. B. Cardinal, & K. M. Bijlsma-Frankema (Eds.), Organizational control (pp. 111–167). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Wallace, J. E. (1995). Organizational and professional commitment in professional and nonprofessional organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 228–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Weber, M. (1904). Die ‚Objektivität’ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis [Objectivity of social science and social policy]. In J. Winckelmann (Ed.), Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre von Max Weber (5th ed., 1982, pp. 146–214). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  116. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Weiherl, J., & Frost, J. (2016). Aligning professional and organizational commitment in universities: From judgmental to developmental performance management. In J. Frost, F. Hattke, & M. Reihlen (Eds.), Multilevel governance in universities (pp. 173–192). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  118. Whitley, R. (2008). Universities as strategic actors: Limitations and variations. In L. Engwall & D. Weaire (Eds.), The university in the market (pp. 23–37). London: Portland Press.Google Scholar
  119. Whitley, R. (2012). Transforming universities: National conditions of their varied organisational actorhood. Minerva, 50(4), 493–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Winter, R. (2009). Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(2), 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Zilber, T. B. (2011). Institutional multiplicity in practice: A tale of two high-tech conferences in Israel. Organization Science, 22(6), 1539–1559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Organization and ManagementUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Public ManagementHamburg UniversityHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations