Multi-Level Governance in Universities: Strategy, Structure, Control

Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 47)


Governing universities is a multi-level as well as a highly paradoxical endeavor. The featured studies in this book examine critically the multifaceted repercussions of changing governance logics and show how contradictory demands for scholarly peer control, market responsiveness, public policy control, and democratization create governance paradoxes. While a large body of academic literature has been focusing on the external governance of universities, this book shifts the focus on organizations’ internal characteristics, thus contributing to a deeper understanding of the changing governance in universities. The book follows exigent calls for getting back to the heart of organization theory when studying organizational change and turns attention to strategies, structures, and control mechanisms as distinctive but interrelated elements of organizational designs. We take a multi-level approach to explore how universities develop strategies in order to cope with changes in their institutional environment (macro level), how universities implement these strategies in their structures and processes (meso level), and how universities design mechanisms to control the behavior of their members (micro level). As universities are highly complex knowledge-based organizations, their modus operandi, i.e. governing strategies, structures, and controls, needs to be responsive to the multiplicity of demands coming from both inside and outside the organization.


Organizational Commitment High Education System High Education Research Academic Entrepreneurialism Meso Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



First of all, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) deserves our deepest gratitude. Their funding of our research projects on the “economics of sciences” (RePort Grant No. 01PW11018) and “performance indicators in science” (IndiKon Grant No. 01PY13014) provided us with the infrastructure to tackle this international publishing project. In a similar vein, the two editors of Springer’s Higher Education Dynamics Series, Peter Maassen and Johan Müller as well as the publishing team around Yoka Jannsen deserve our appreciation for their support of our idea and the opportunity to develop this edited volume. Of course, we express our sincere gratitude to all the authors who contributed to this joint publication. Without their devotion to the topic and their commitment to the idea, the book would have never come about. Our sincere appreciation is extended to all reviewers and their constructive criticism of the submitted manuscripts. Their straightforward cooperation was a valuable support for us editing this book. Last but not least, we cordially thank Rebekka Stieve and Tanja Giba for proofreading the manuscripts.


  1. Alvesson, M., & Benner, M. (2016). Higher education in the knowledge society: Miracle or mirage? In J. Frost, F. Hattke, & M. Reihlen (Eds.), Multi-level governance in universities (pp. 75–91). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amaral, A., Bleiklie, I., & Musselin, C. (Eds.). (2008). From governance to identity. Higher education dynamics (Vol. 24). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Bockelmann, P. (1962). Aufgaben und Aussichten der Hochschulreform. Zur Hochschulpolitik und zur hochschulpolitischen Lage [Tasks and implications of higher education reform. The state of higher education politics]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  6. Bögner, I., Petersen, J., & Kieser, A. (2016). Is it possible to assess progress in science? In J. Frost, F. Hattke, & M. Reihlen (Eds.), Multi-level governance in universities (pp. 215–231). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boitier, M., & Rivière, A. (2016). Changing professions? The professionalization of management in universities. In J. Frost, F. Hattke, & M. Reihlen (Eds.), Multi-level governance in universities (pp. 95–113). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brentano, M. v. (1967). Politikum wider Willen. Zur gegenwärtigen Lage der Universität [Politicized against their will. The contemporary state of universities]. In S. Leibfried (Ed.), Wider die Untertanenfabrik. Handbuch zur Demokratisierung der Hochschule [Against servant factories. Handbook on democratizing universities] (pp. 373–383). Köln: Pahl-Rugenstein.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, B. R. (1977). Academic power in Italy: Bureaucracy and oligarchy in a national university system. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cloete, N., Maassen, P., Fehnel, R., Moja, T., Gibbon, T., & Perold, H. (Eds.). (2006). Transformation in higher education. Higher education dynamics (Vol. 10). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Dahrendorf, R. (1965). Bildung ist Bürgerrecht: Plädoyer für eine aktive Bildungspolitik [Education is a citizen right. A plea for an active education policy]. Hamburg: Nannen Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. De Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). 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
  16. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Empson, L., & Chapman, C. (2006). Partnership versus corporation: Implications of alternative forms of governance in professional service firms. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 24, 139–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Empson, L., & Langley, A. (2015). Leadership and professionals: Multiple manifestations of influence in professional service firms. In L. Empson, D. Muzio, J. P. Broschak, & B. Hinings (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of professional service firms (pp. 163–188). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix. University–industry–government innovation in action. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fitzgerald, H. E., Bruns, K., Sonka, S. T., Furco, A., & Swanson, L. (2012). The centrality of engagement in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16(3), 7–28.Google Scholar
  22. Freidson, E. (1970). Professional dominance. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  23. Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  24. Frost, J. (2005). Märkte in Unternehmen [Markets in corporations]. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  25. Frost, J., Hattke, F., Reihlen, M., & Wenzlaff, F. (2015). Mehrebenen-Steuerung in Universitäten [Multi-level governance in universities]. Köln: Kölner Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
  26. Gibbons, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Gläser, J. (2006). Wissenschaftliche Produktionsgemeinschaften: Die soziale Ordnung der Forschung [Scientific production communities: The social order of research]. Frankfurt/M: Campus.Google Scholar
  28. Gläser, J., & Lange, S. (2007). Wissenschaft [Science]. In A. Benz, S. Lütz, U. Schimank, & G. Simonis (Eds.), Handbuch Governance [Handbook on governance] (pp. 437–451). Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  29. Gornitzka, Å., Kogan, M., & Amaral, A. (Eds.) (2005). Reform and change in higher education: Analysing policy implementation. In Higher education dynamics (Vol. 8). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Greenwood, R., & Miller, D. (2010). Tackling design anew: Getting back to the heart of organizational theory. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(4), 78–88.Google Scholar
  31. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gulbrandsen, M., & Slipersaeter, S. (2007). The third mission and the entrepreneurial university model. In A. Bonaccorsi & C. Daraio (Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation (pp. 112–143). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  33. Habermas, J. (1969). Protestbewegung und Hochschulreform [Protest movement and higher education reform]. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  34. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harlacher, D., & Reihlen, M. (2014). Governance of professional service firms: A configurational approach. Business Research, 7(1), 125–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hattke, F., Blaschke, S., & Frost, J. (2016a). From voluntary collective action to organized collaboration? The provision of public goods in pluralistic organizations. In J. Frost, F. Hattke, & M. Reihlen (Eds.), Multi-level governance in universities (pp. 115–140). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hattke, F., Vogel, R., & Woiwode, H. (2016b). When professional and organizational logics collide: Balancing invisible and visible colleges in institutional complexity. In J. Frost, F. Hattke, & M. Reihlen (Eds.), Multi-level governance in universities (pp. 235–256). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Humboldt, W. v. (1809). Über die innere und äußere Organisation der höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstalten in Berlin [On the inner and outer organization of higher education institutions in Berlin]. In W. v. Humboldt (Ed.), (1964), Werke in fünf Bänden. Band IV (pp. 255–266). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  40. Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Jaspers, K. (1946). Die Idee der Universität [The idea of the university]. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Kerr, C. (1963). The idea of a multiversity. In C. Kerr (Ed.), The uses of the university (pp. 1–45). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kogan, M., Bauer, M., Bleiklie, I., & Henkel, M. (Eds.). (2006). Transforming higher education. In Higher education dynamics (Vol. 8). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Kraushaar, W. (2005). Fortschritt, Bildung und Demokratie. Die Massenuniversität im Zeichen der Gesellschaftskritik von 1968 [Progress, education, and democracy. The mass-university in the light of social criticism of 1968]. In U. Sieg & D. Korsch (Eds.), Die Idee der Universität heute [The idea of university today] (pp. 73–86). München: K. G. Saur.Google Scholar
  45. Krohn, W., & Küppers, G. (1989). Die Selbstorganisation der Wissenschaft [The self-organization of science]. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Kwiek, M. (2016). Academic entrepreneurialism and changing governance in universities. Evidence from empirical studies. In J. Frost, F. Hattke, & M. Reihlen (Eds.), Multi-level governance in universities (pp. 49–74). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kyvik, S. (2009). The dynamics of change in higher education: Expansion and contraction in an organisational field. In Higher education dynamics (Vol. 27). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Levy, A., & Merry, U. (1986). Organizational transformation: Approaches, strategies, theories. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  50. Luhmann, N. (1990). Wissenschaft als soziales System. [Science as a social system]. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  51. Lynch, R., & Baines, P. (2004). Strategy development in UK higher education: Towards resource-based competitive advantages. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(2), 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Meier, F. (2009). Die Universität als Akteur: Zum institutionellen Wandel der Hochschulorganisation [The university as an actor: The institutional change of higher education organization]. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  53. Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J., Jr. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546–562.Google Scholar
  54. Miller, D. (1986). Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 7(3), 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1980). Archetypes of organizational transition. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2), 268–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Miller, D., Greenwood, R., & Prakash, R. (2009). What happened to organization theory? Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(4), 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5’s: A synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science, 26(3), 322–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Moses, I. (2007). Institutional autonomy revisited: Autonomy justified and accounted. Higher Education Policy, 20(3), 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Münch, R. (2011). Akademischer Kapitalismus: Über die politische Ökonomie der Hochschulreform [Academic capitalism: On the political economy of higher education reforms]. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  60. Musselin, C., & Teixeira, P. N. (Eds.). (2004). Reforming higher education: Public policy design and implementation. In Higher education dynamics (Vol. 41). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Nitsch, W. (1983). Hochschule als Organisation [University as an organization]. In L. Huber (Ed.), Ausbildung und Sozialisation in der Hochschule [Education and socialization in the university] (pp. 141–150). Stuttgart: KlettGoogle Scholar
  62. Nitsch, W., Gerhardt, U., Offe, C., & Preuß, U. K. (1965). Hochschule in der Demokratie. Kritische Beiträge zur Erbschaft und Reform der deutschen Universität [Higher education in democracy. Critical contributions to the heritage and reform of the German university]. Neuwied: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
  63. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  64. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Oppermann, T. (2005). Ordinarienuniversität – Gruppenuniversität – Räteuniversität. Wege und Irrwege [University of ordinaria – group university – committee university. Paths and meanders]. Wissenschaftsrecht, 15, 1–18.Google Scholar
  66. Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I., & Ferlie, E. (Eds.). (2009). University governance – Western European comparative perspectives. In Higher education dynamics (Vol. 25). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Parker, M. (2014). University, Ltd: Changing a business school. Organization, 21(2), 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Picht, G. (1968). Was erwarten Staat und Gesellschaft von der Universität? [What do the state and society expect from a university?]. Merkur, 22, 18–32.Google Scholar
  69. Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 38(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Reihlen, M., & Mone, M. (2012). Professional service firms, knowledge-based competition, and the heterarchical organization form. In M. Reihlen & A. Werr (Eds.), Handbook of research on entrepreneurship in professional services (pp. 107–126). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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
  72. Reihlen, M., & Wenzlaff, F. (2016). Institutional change of European higher education: The case of post-war Germany. In J. Frost, F. Hattke, & M. Reihlen (Eds.), Multi-level governance in universities (pp. 19–48). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rhoades, G., & Slaughter, S. (2004). Academic capitalism in the new economy: Challenges and choices. American Academic, 1(1), 37–59.Google Scholar
  74. Ringelhan, S., Stumpf-Wollersheim, J., & Welpe, I. M. (2016). Current developments at higher education institutions and interview-based recommendations to foster work motivation and work performance. In J. Frost, F. Hattke, & M. Reihlen (Eds.), Multi-level governance in universities (pp. 193–214). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rohstock, A. (2009). Von der “Ordinarienuniversität” zur “Revolutionszentrale”?: Hochschulreform und Hochschulrevolte in Bayern und Hessen 1957–1976 [From university of ordinaria to revolutionary headquarter? Higher education reform and revolt in Bavaria and Hesse 1957–1976]. München: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  76. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Salmi, J. (2007). Autonomy from the state vs responsiveness to markets. Higher Education Policy, 20(3), 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schelsky, H. (1969). Abschied von der Hochschulpolitik oder die Universität im Fadenkreuz des Versagens [A farewell to higher education politics or the university as a target for failure]. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Universitäts-Verlag.Google Scholar
  79. Schimank, U. (2008). Ökonomisierung der Hochschulen – eine Makro-Meso-Mikro-Perspektive [The economization of higher education – a macro-meso-micro perspective]. In K.-S. Rehberg (Ed.), Die Natur der Gesellschaft [The nature of society] (pp. 622–635). Frankfurt/M: Campus.Google Scholar
  80. Schimank, U. (2012). Wissenschaft als gesellschaftliches Teilsystem [Science as a sub-system of society]. In S. Maasen, M. Kaiser, M. Reinhhart, & B. Sutter (Eds.), Handbuch Wissenschaftssoziologie [Handbook on sociology of science] (pp. 113–124). Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  81. Schimank, U., & Volkmann, U. (2008). Ökonomisierung der Gesellschaft [Economization of society]. In A. Maurer (Ed.), Handbuch der Wirtschaftssoziologie [Handbook of the sociology of economics] (pp. 382–393). Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  82. Schmidt, L., & Thelen, D. (1969). Hochschulreform. Gefahr im Verzuge? [Higher education reform. Danger in delay?]. Frankfurt/M: Fischer.Google Scholar
  83. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (2001). Expanding and elaborating the concept of academic capitalism. Organization, 8(2), 154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Spender, J.-C. (2016). Universities, governance, and business schools. In J. Frost, F. Hattke, & M. Reihlen (Eds.), Multi-level governance in universities (pp. 141–169). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sporn, B. (2001). Building adaptive universities: Emerging organisational forms based on experiences of European and US universities. Tertiary Education & Management, 7(2), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Teichler, U. (Ed.). (1990). Das Hochschulwesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Higher education in Germany]. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.Google Scholar
  88. von Lüde, R. (Ed.). (2010). Neue Wege der Hochschulgovernance [New ways of higher education governance]. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press.Google Scholar
  89. 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.), Multi-level governance in universities (pp. 173–192). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Wissema, J. G. (2009). Towards the third generation university: Managing the university in transition. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wollersheim, J., Welpe, I. M., Osterloh, M., & Ringelhan, S. (Eds.). (2015). Incentives and performance: Governance of research organizations. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Organization and ManagementUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Strategic ManagementLeuphana University of LüneburgLüneburgGermany

Personalised recommendations