Abstract
A conceptual framework of leadership and governance is described here, the aim of which is to help universities undertake strategic transformation in becoming more entrepreneurial, that is, more agile, resilient and innovative. The framework is illustrated with case material from a retrospective analysis of changes in a UK university that was differentiating its mission to become the enterprise university. Making explicit the implicit ways of change management and partnership working involved in strategic transformation, the framework draws out those leadership and governance processes operating in practice. In this way, those practices and processes promoting healthy idea flow are identified as well as those acting as barriers to innovation. It is posited that the framework could support universities and other knowledge organizations to more fully advance their purpose by enhancing value creation released through social networks driving innovation. The leadership and governance model dominant in most university and industry management systems is a hierarchical, formal authority structure. While relevant to organizational resourcing, accountability and scaling, bounded hierarchy is not well-positioned to support the healthy flow of ideas necessary for successful entrepreneurial activities. Given that universities and many industries are ‘idea factories’, new models of leadership and governance that serve to more fully leverage the creativity embedded in the organization can accelerate delivery against the shared goals emerging from collaboration. New ways of working that better reflect the actuality of innovation and the idea ecosystem are identified, given that ideas emerge from community systems comprised of diverse individuals connecting with others in groups with ideas flowing along social networks. Peer-to-peer exchanges are inherently more agile, and engagement is characterized by idea exploration, harvesting and co-creation with idea flow across institutional barriers. New models of leadership and governance that underpin the dynamic articulation of the formal hierarchy with the unbounded community of social networks can support entrepreneurial activities and are key to securing sustainable university-industry partnerships. The model described here draws upon learning explored in executive education and talent development programs exploring institutional sustainability leadership, including approaches to driving innovation and social enterprise (undertaken in the USA, Europe and UK). New ways of working are proffered that re-frame university-industry partnerships as dynamic social networks, where ideas are exchanged and developed, supported by leadership and governance processes that promote, rather than hinder, healthy idea flow. Trustful relationships are developed over time across boundaries, both disciplinary and organizational, and support experimentation and innovation in line with the expressed shared purpose. In an entrepreneurial university, leaders at every level need to be conscious of the organizational senior management hierarchy operating as one system and the community of social networks acting as another system, and seek to understand how best to harness the creative tensions between the two systems. Rather than an organizational chart defining membership, creative and decision-making processes and systems are designed to better reflect actual interactions and idea flow throughout the organization and with its partners. Developing new models of leadership and governance that map against the stages of idea flow can serve to drive up successful entrepreneurial (and intrapreneurial) activities. In this way, entrepreneurial universities can increase idea flow within the university-industry network(s) in line with their strategic intent. In making the implicit explicit it is possible to transform the behaviour of the people involved and, through them, the culture that supports entrepreneurial partnerships. The conceptual framework described here is necessarily reductionist in nature, however, mapping idea flow from successful projects and applying such knowledge to future project flows along with the associated governance processes could add atomic-level detail relevant to the organizations and projects concerned to drive healthy idea flow over the long-term. The conceptual framework is illustrated by reference to the strategic transformation of a UK university becoming more entrepreneurial as it delivered change in line with differentiating its academic mission to become the enterprise university.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arbo, P., & Benneworth, P. (2007). Understanding the Regional Contribution of Higher Education Institutions. OECD Publishing.
Bridgman, T. (2007). Freedom and autonomy in the university enterprise. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(4), 478–490.
Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Chahine, T. (2016). Introduction to social entrepreneurship. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis.
Crow, M. (2008). Building an entrepreneurial university. Paper presented at the 2008 Kauffman-Planck Summit on Entrepreneurship Research and Policy, Bavaria, Germany.
Cullen-Lester, K. L., Maupin, C. K., & Carter, D. R. (2017). Incorporating social networks into leadership development: A conceptual model and evaluation of research and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 130–152. Article in press available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.005.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907–1912.
Erkkilä, T., & Piironen, O. (2014). Shifting fundaments of European higher education governance: Competition, ranking, autonomy and accountability. Comparative Education, 50(2), 177–191.
Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.
Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. Routledge.
Florida, R. (1999). Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic development. In L. Branscomb & F. Kodama (Eds.), Industrializing knowledge (pp. 589–610). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Freimuth, A. (2008). For German universities, a time of sweeping change. Paper presented at the 2008 Kauffman-Planck Summit on Entrepreneurship Research and Policy, Bavaria, Germany.
Fusilier, M., & Munro, D. (2013). Enterprising versus traditional change management in a for-profit university. Universal Journal of Management, 1(2), 54–62.
Gibb, A., Haskins, G., & Robertson, I. (2013). Leading the entrepreneurial university: Meeting the entrepreneurial development needs of higher education institutions. In A. Altmann & B. Ebersberger (Eds.), Universities in change: Managing higher education institutions in the age of globalization. New York: Springer.
Guerrero, M., Kirby, D. A., & Urbano, D. (2006). A literature review on entrepreneurial universities: An institutional approach. Autonomous University of Barcelona, Business Economics Department, Working Paper Series, No. 06/8 available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1838615.
Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Le Roux, C., & Pretorius, M. (2016). Conceptualizing the limiting issues inhibiting sustainability embeddedness. Sustainability, 8(4), 364–386.
McCracken, G. (2013). The corporation is at odds with the future. Harvard Business Review Blog Network. Available from https://hbr.org/2013/05/the-corp-is-odds-future [May 29, 2013].
Middlehurst, R. (2004). Changing internal governance: A discussion of leadership roles and management structures in UK universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 58(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2004.00273.x.
Nedeva, M. (2008). New tricks and old dogs? The ‘third mission’ and the re-production of the university. In World Yearbook of Education: Geographies of Knowledge/Geometries of Power: Framing the Future of Higher Education 2008 (pp. 85–105). Routledge.
Pentland, A. (2015). Social Physics: How social networks make us smarter. Penguin Books.
Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161–170.
Purcell, W. (2014). Disruption and distinctiveness in higher education. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 18(1), 3–8.
Purcell, W. M., Beer, J., & Southern, R. (2016). Differentiation of English universities: The impact of policy reforms in driving a more diverse higher education landscape. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 20(1), 24–33.
Purcell, W. M., Sharp, L., & Chahine, T. (2017). New governance models for entrepreneurial universities: A conceptual framework. In Academic Proceedings of the 2017 University-Industry Engagement Conference: From Best Practice to Next Practice—Asia-pacific Opportunities and Perspectives (pp. 19–29). ISBN 978-94-91901-25-6.
Sam, C., & Van Der Sijde, P. (2014). Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models. Higher Education, 68(6), 891–908.
Sharp, L. (2016). Idea flow mapping. Available from http://www.slideshare.net/LetsRECODE/rec.ode-webinar-a-model-for-creating-agile-innovative-and-changecapable-organizations.
Smith, D. (1999). Burton R. Clark 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Higher Education, 38(3), 373–374.
Sölvell, O. (2015). On strategy & competitiveness: 11 recipes for analytical success. Stockholm: Ivory Tower Publishers.
The Work Foundation. (2010). Anchoring growth: The role of ‘Anchor Institutions’ in the regeneration of UK cities. Moving forward: The northern way. Research Paper 2. London: The Work Foundation, Lancaster University.
Vorley, T., & Nelles, J. (2008). (Re) conceptualising the academy. Higher Education Management and Policy, 20(3), 1–17.
Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37(8), 1205–1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.021.
Zak, P. J. (2017). Trust factor: The science of creating high-performance companies. New York: Amacom.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful for background research undertaken by Ms. Allice Hocking at SERIO, for the intellectual space created by Dr. Jack Spengler (Harvard University) and for ideas shared by Ms. L. Sharpe through her work on sustainability under Creative Commons license. The author also wishes to acknowledge the intellectual resource offered by the University-Industry Innovation Network meeting in Adelaide, Australia in February 2017 where an abstract and keynote talk about the study was presented. The work of the faculty, staff, students, partners and the wider stakeholder community is also acknowledged as they focused their enterprising efforts in helping create the UK’s Enterprise University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Purcell, W.M. (2019). A Conceptual Framework of Leadership and Governance in Sustaining Entrepreneurial Universities Illustrated with Case Material from a Retrospective Review of a University’s Strategic Transformation: The Enterprise University. In: Kliewe, T., Kesting, T., Plewa, C., Baaken, T. (eds) Developing Engaged and Entrepreneurial Universities. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8130-0_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8130-0_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-8129-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-8130-0
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)