Does It Really Matter? Assessing the Performance Effects of Changes in Leadership and Management Structures in Nordic Higher Education

3© The Author(s) 2019 R. Pinheiro et al. (eds.), Reforms, Organizational Change and Performance in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11738-2_1 CHAPTER 1 Does It Really Matter? Assessing thePerformance Effects ofChanges inLeadership andManagement Structures inNordic Higher Education KirsiPulkkinen, TimoAarrevaara, LailaNordstrandBerg, LarsGeschwind, HanneFossHansen, HelgeHernes, JussiKivistö, JonasKrogLind, AnuLyytinen, EliasPekkola, RómuloPinheiro, BjørnStensaker, andJohanSöderlind K. Pulkkinen (*) • T. Aarrevaara Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland e-mail: [email protected]; timo.aarr[email protected] L. N. Berg Department of Social Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway e-mail: [email protected] L. Geschwind • J. Söderlind School of Industrial Engineering and Management, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Helge Hernes passed away in the Fall of 2018. Published in Pinheiro R., Geschwind L., Foss Hansen H. & Pulkkinen K. (eds) Reforms, Organizational Change and Performance in Higher Education : A Comparative Account from the Nordic Countries. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN: 978-3-030-11738-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11738-2_1 4 IntroductIon: ratIonalIsatIon andconvergIng HIgHer educatIon PolIcIes As a sector of the economy, higher education has been the subject of substantial change in the last couple of decades, not least due to the exponential growth in the number of students and institutions, often seen as pertaining to the phenomena of massification (Trow and Burrage 2010). All over the world, organisational fields and their specific institutions, such as universities, have similarities in organisational design and activities. In many countries, universities have experienced a shift towards ‘academic capitalism’ (Slaughter and Leslie 1999) and are operating as ‘entrepreneurial universities’ (Clark 1998; Etzkowitz etal. 2008). Rationalisation of the universities as organisational actors has been done via the introduction of a more formal structure in terms of a stronger emphasis on quality assurance, evaluation, accountability measures and incentive systems. These can be considered a transnational process linked to the New Public Management (NPM) type of governance reforms (Ramirez and Christensen 2013; Seeber etal. 2015). The social mechanisms of spreading ideas of rationalisation can be highlighted through the perspective of institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Literature on isomorphism concentrates on the increasing similarity of organisational and institutional structures and H. F. Hansen • J. K. Lind Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] H. Hernes • R. Pinheiro Department of Political Science & Management, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway e-mail: romulo.m.pinheir[email protected] J. Kivistö • A. Lyytinen • E. Pekkola Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] B. Stensaker Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] K. PULKKINEN ET AL. 5 cultures. Studies on policy convergence instead focus on changes in national policy characteristics. Policy convergence, that is, the development of similar or identical policies across countries over time (Knill 2005), seems to be particularly evident in Nordic countries. They show similar types of policy development in many significant areas of higher education policy, particularly those related to governance. One of the most important reasons behind policy convergence is international policy promotion, where an actor with expertise in a policy field promotes certain policies. International (or supranational) organisations specialising in certain policy fields are the main actors for inducing the convergence of policies. This happens when they actively promote certain policies and define objectives and standards, as well as arguments, to support their case in an international setting. Countries diverging from promoted policy models may feel pressure to comply with the policies (Holzinger and Knill 2005; Knill 2005). There are two overarching international political processes relating to higher education in Europe which presumably have a significant impact on the policy convergence: the higher education ‘Modernisation Agenda’ (European Commission 2006, 2011), promoted under the auspices of the EU institutions (European Commission, in particular), and the intergovernmental Bologna process (Moisio 2014). Many of the NPM ideals implemented in Nordic universities, such as promoting the accountability and autonomy of higher education institutions and improving the governance, funding, quality and relevance of higher education, are directly aligned with the Commission’s Modernisation Agenda. Interestingly, the Modernisation Agenda presents the American higher education system and universities in particular as one of the important points of comparison in developing European higher education (Slaughter and Cantwell 2012; Slaughter and Taylor 2016). Similarly, the Bologna process seems to increase policy convergence at the European level, even though research evidence for this is not yet entirely clear (Witte 2008). However, Voegtle etal. (2011) found that higher education policies of Bologna participants converge more strongly and that the Bologna process has made a crucial difference in increasing the similarity of higher education policies. Particularly in the area of quality assurance, the majority of Bologna signatories implemented most of the measures. They also included all the required actors into their quality assurance measures according to Bologna standards by 2008 (Voegtle etal. 2011). DOES IT REALLY MATTER? ASSESSING THEPERFORMANCE EFFECTS… 6 Furthermore, international/intergovernmental organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Bank and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) are highly influential actors in higher education policy convergence (e.g. see Shahjahan and Madden 2015). At the European and Nordic level, the OECD has the most notably high level of impact on policy convergence. Nation states, including Nordic countries, often rely on the OECD to provide them with the latest data on trends, current issues and policy options. The OECD uses conferences, trend and review reports and the mediation of policy language to influence the thinking of national-level policymakers within and outside of its member countries (Shahjahan and Madden 2015). For instance, the OECD’s thematic reviews can provide strong legitimisation or justification to national governments for initiating policy reforms, as has happened in Finland (Kallo 2009). In addition to the influence of international organisations, crossnational policy convergence might simply be the result of similar but independent responses caused by the countries reacting to the same types of policy problems (Knill 2005; Bennett 1991). At the same time, convergence in policies is more likely in countries that are characterised by high institutional similarity. Policies tend to be implemented insofar as they fit with existing cultures, socio-economic structures and institutional arrangements. In their search for relevant policy models, states are expected to look to the experiences of those countries with which they share an especially close set of cultural similarities and ties (Knill 2005). However, although policy convergence is clearly observable across the Nordic countries, it is important to note that similar policies are introduced at different points in time and with important variations in the details. For instance, all the Nordic countries have introduced performancebased funding systems linked to the distribution of resources for basic research. Yet, performance is measured using different indicators and redistribution potentials. The effects are also somewhat different. There seems to be more convergence in policy ideas and policy rhetoric than in actual policy implementation. Other examples of these dynamics are found in relation to the overall governance and management structures, as well as to the national quality assurance systems linked to education. Reforms inspired by the NPM have had a profound effect on the internal structures and governance arrangements of public higher education institutions in the Nordic countries. The impact has been further K. PULKKINEN ET AL. 7 strengthened by parallel calls for increasing accountability and efficiency (Pinheiro etal. 2014). Yet, few studies to date have systematically and comparatively investigated what types of effects the so-called modernisation efforts have had on teaching and research performance in publicly run and funded universities. This book responds to this gap in knowledge and brings forth new data and comparative analysis of universities in the Nordic countries. The environmental conditions under which Nordic higher education institutions operate have changed dramatically in the last two decades. Policy efforts aimed at modernising the sector have paid considerable attention to the way in which public universities operate. A strong focus has been given to managerially inspired aspects, such as efficiency, effectiveness and accountability (de Boer and Enders 2017). In addition to managing their internal operations in more cost-efficient manners, public universities are increasingly expected to respond to the needs of various, rather different, external stakeholder groups. In light of the social contract that exists between the universities and society that, in essence, funds them, interacting with the surrounding society has become a task to be tackled actively (Fumasoli etal. 2014; de Jong etal. 2016). One of the many mechanisms being used to achieve these goals relies on enhancing the rationalisation of internal structures and activities by promoting professional management. As a result, most Nordic universities have developed extended administrative structures, ranging from central to unit levels. These structures have been designed to be capable of strategically supporting the primary activities of universities, that is, teaching and research (Amaral etal. 2003). Some have introduced changes in the nomination of formal leaders, that is, they are appointed rather than elected. Reform efforts are both costly and demanding for the personnel. Therefore, it is necessary to monitor the extent to which they generate the expected results. Consideration should be given to the cost-efficient management of the universities as well as to the situations of the personnel whose task is to perform their duties according to the academic quality criteria in the midst of extensive reforms. As a key sector of the economy, it is necessary to take stock of the ways in which the higher education sector has changed performance-wise as a result of government-led and/or initiated reform efforts. This is, in many ways, the case with Nordic countries, which are characterised by a welfare state ideology and development of the public sector within this framework. Moreover, they are relatively similar in DOES IT REALLY MATTER? ASSESSING THEPERFORMANCE EFFECTS… 8 terms of population size and geographical proximity and share the same type of political systems and political values. In terms of policy challenges, all Nordic countries have to deal with the financial, social and political sustainability of the Nordic welfare model which, in turn, as has been mentioned before, has triggered government-led reform efforts under the label of NPM, particularly in the higher education sector. In all countries, universities are expected to play an increasingly important role in local and national economic development and to spur innovation. Such expectations have further intensified government-led efforts to modernise the higher education sector in all Nordic countries but have also led to calls from the higher education sector to balance governmental funding and leeway regarding, for example, autonomy to better match with the growing demands for more diverse activities. Before moving forward, we provide a brief note on the Nordic region, which is the geographical focus of this book. The Nordic region is situated in Northern Europe, and the Nordic countries are generally considered to include Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, including their associated territories (Greenland, the Faroe Islands and the Åland Islands)(Fig. 1.1). The region shares a strong cultural history and is known for its commitment to social-democratic values, equal opportunity and a generous but financially sustainable welfare state model (Hilson 2008). The Nordic region ranks rather high internationally across a multiplicity of comparative dimensions, ranging from innovation to trust in government to educational quality to quality of life. One of its great successes has been its ability to combine a strong safety net for its citizens, together with the adoption of market-based mechanisms (open economy) aimed at increasing its global competitiveness. When compared to other countries, and as a whole, the Nordics were able to withstand the pressures emanating from the 2008 financial crisis, despite being affected differently as a result of their economic profile and vulnerability to global export markets. That being said, as is the case elsewhere, the region faces a series of challenges, including but not limited to an ageing population, an over-reliance on particular industries (economic specialisation) and the need to reform the pension system (Norden 2014). The next section provides information on the research project that provided the framework for the current volume. K. PULKKINEN ET AL. 9 tHe FInnut-PerFacad study Aim andResearch Problem This volume reports on the results emanating from a three-year (fall 2014–summer 2017) comparative, international research project entitled “Does It Really Matter? Assessing the Performance Effects of Changes in Leadership and Management Structures in Nordic Higher Education”, funded by the Norwegian Research Council in the context of its FINNUT Fig. 1.1 The Nordic countries as the geographical focus of the book (excluding Iceland). Source: Mapswire.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License DOES IT REALLY MATTER? ASSESSING THEPERFORMANCE EFFECTS… 10 programme (Research and Innovation in the Educational Sector). The study’s focus was on the relationship between changes in formal leadership structures and performance shifts and was substantiated around the following research problem: • To what extent are changes in leadership and management structures related to shifts in teaching and research performance in public universities across the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland) in the last decade? In doing so, it illuminated three key dimensions: 1. the key drivers promoting the rationalisation of academic activities in general and, specifically, the rise of managerialism within public universities, 2. the roles played by both internal (academics and administrators alike) and external actors in strengthening the managerial structures (central and unit levels) of universities and 3. the effects of changes in leadership/managerial structures in the (teaching and research) performance of individual subunits, as well as in the behaviours of internal actors. In a nutshell, the study provided both a quantitative assessment of formal structures and a qualitative interpretation of the meanings held by social agents (central and unit levels) associated with those same structures, for example, on being ‘modern’, ‘responsive’, ‘accountable’, ‘entrepreneurial’ and so on. Rather than simply focusing on generating new sets of empirical data, the study aimed to advance new perspectives for theorising ongoing rationalisation processes on the basis of the various disciplinary traditions and competencies brought together in the multidisciplinary research team, the core of which was composed of the authors of the current volume. Theoretical Foundation Organisations have traditionally been conceived as either instruments, or tools to reach certain ends (goals), or as institutions, that is, having lives of their own (Scott 2008). Both views have merits and provide important insights on the dynamics facing modern organisations across the public K. PULKKINEN ET AL. 11 and private sectors. The rational view of organisations (c.f. Scott 2003: 33–55) views internal behaviour as resulting from the purposeful actions of a set of coordinated social agents within a given local setting (Battilana 2006; Hay and Wincott 1998). Key elements like goal specificity and the formalisation of structures and procedures are seen as critical to the ‘rationality of organizational action’ (Scott 2003: 34), therefore ranking high on the managerial agenda. The general assumption in the literature is that, as a process, rationalisation is, first and foremost, substantiated around the formal structure of organisations (Thompson 2008; Pfeffer 1997): […] in rules that assure participants will behave in ways calculated to achieve desired objectives, in cognitive decision-premises that guide individual decision making, in control arrangements that evaluate performance and detect deviance, in reward systems that motivate participants to carry out prescribed tasks, and in the set of criteria by which participants are selected, replaced, and promoted. (Scott 2003: 54; emphasis added) The rational systems’ view of organisations, vividly contested by many (March and Olsen 2006a), puts a preferential emphasis on the role of formalised rules (plans, strategies, programmes, etc.) and normative structures (roles, sanctions, regulations, etc.). In doing so, this view disregards more tacit dimensions, such as the effects of macro-level scripts (DiMaggio and Powell 1983) and the preferences and behavioural patterns of organisational participants (Powell and Colyvas 2008). Proponents of rational systems argue that structural (often hierarchical) arrangements play a critical role in the ways in which organisations interact with, and respond to, environmental demands (Selznick 1984). Leadership structures are celebrated, with the lower levels of the organisations primarily involved in the implementation, rather than problem assessment, of the key decisions undertaken at higher levels (Blau and Scott 2003). In (continental) Europe, the basic structural features of academic organisations, that is, decentralisation of authority, loose-coupling of structures, multiplicity of tasks, unclear goals, complex technologies and so on (Pinheiro 2012; Clark 1983), have not traditionally been conducive to the implementation of centralised models of decision-making (Amaral etal. 2003). This is particularly the case when it comes to both the speed and scope of university responses to external demands (Hölttä and Karjalainen 1997). For example, Musselin (2007) contended that: DOES IT REALLY MATTER? ASSESSING THEPERFORMANCE EFFECTS… 18 (Hessels etal. 2009). Knowledge regimes are fields of the policy research organisations and institutions that govern them. They are organisational and institutional machineries that generate data, research and policy recommendations, as well as other ideas that influence policy debate (Campbell and Pedersen 2014). The idea follows the same line of thought as Olsen’s typology (2007), where the universities may be seen as instruments of national policies while also as leaning on a base of a community of scholars. In other words, universities are expertise-based institutions that simultaneously aim to influence policies proactively and respond to policy initiatives reactively. The relationship between the state and the universities can be seen as based on highly different grounds. Universities have traditionally viewed themselves as communities of scholars where strong autonomy guarantees high quality and trustworthy research and teaching (Olsen 2007). As a result of this view, society is considered to benefit from a strong science basis without unnecessary middlemen. The state can be seen to sell the university free hands to manage its tasks in the way it sees fittest. In contrast—and juxtaposing this view with another classification of Olsen’s typology—the university is an instrument of national policies. The state funds research and highest teaching with the condition that the university performs its duties in a transparent and cost-efficient manner (Olsen 2007). As a result, tax funds are used to support the development of society in ways that are deemed relevant. Activities are reported responsibly and in a way that demonstrates the accountability of the university institution towards the state funder and broader society. However, the autonomy of science is dependent on a non-autonomous economic and management system. The concept of universities as specific kinds of organisations with limited rationality and loosely coupled has begun to change. The institutional form of universities lives in the midst of a socio-political (and economic) struggle characterised by pressures to reconsider their role, regulatory practices and funding arrangements, as well as the processes that link universities to other societal actors. Now, universities are increasingly transforming into penetrated hierarchies that are managed organisations with a central leadership and formalised rule systems (Bleiklie et al. 2015). Strategic actorhood has become a key aspect in this. Penetrated hierarchies balance between multiple pressures from a broad range of external actors and stakeholders who hold power in the funding and prestige of the universities. As such, this creates a dependence that affects the internal power K. PULKKINEN ET AL. 19 structures, control mechanisms and working practices of universities. The academically focused pressures have been joined by managerial performance demands, not only from the government but also from other external actors who share an interest in how the university institution is managed. Yet, the ability of universities to respond to the external pressures to, for example, innovate and develop organisational strategies is dependent on the availability of resources from a number of actors (Whitley 2008). The development of universities as particular types of strategic actors relies heavily on the policies of governments, in particular, regarding their role in steering. National politics and the governance of universities are strongly coupled through the implementation of policies, despite the formal autonomy of universities. The linkage has often been approached from a point of view of dichotomy, where the autonomy of universities and the external steering of them are seen as opposing poles (Stensaker 2014). In an attempt to move beyond a top-down/bottom-up dichotomy and a duel-based view of the governance model, Sabatier (2005) applied a more general policy implementation toolset for the analysis of university– state relationships. In this model, the study of policy implementation is approached with institutional learning as a central element. Though the top-down perspective allows the study of learning amongst proponents of a particular reform, it is ill-suited to similar studies amongst opponents of the reform. According to Sabatier, this lack can be rectified by looking at the strategies with which the bottom-uppers (the opponents) aim to strengthen the attainment of their goals. Sabatier called for the combination of the top-down and bottom-up approaches in the analysis to avoid a bias towards the proponents or opponents. In order to allow for the learning and systematic change (rather than ad hoc deviance from the norm), a period of at least a decade is necessary (Sabatier 2005). Finally, the interplay between the university governance and political landscape can also be investigated based on the operational logics that are used. Universities work with a dynamic operational logic in their external relations and with an organic logic in the internal environments (Ståhle and Åberg 2012). The former outlines the conditions for the relationship between university actors and external stakeholders, while the latter defines the rationale for cooperation with actors outside academia. In a dynamic working environment, university actors network with other independent actors. The actors have a self-determined relationship with each other, and they can be seen to gain mutually from the interaction. Universities are DOES IT REALLY MATTER? ASSESSING THEPERFORMANCE EFFECTS… 20 not considered to simply react to changes in their surrounding environment and/or act as instruments for national political agendas (Olsen 2007), but are presumed to influence their working context themselves. Universities can, then, be seen as active elements of policy planning processes, provided they have the will and skills to act. The way universities interact with the policy planning actors is, however, also linked to the internal working environment. In the modern context, universities function as a type of representative democracy (Olsen 2007) in the midst of managerial pressures. This democracy continues to rest on the ideals of academic freedom, broad interest representation, an open discussion culture and respect for the self-correcting mechanism of science—in essence, the academic heartland (Clark 1998). In the Nordic context, the democratic aspect includes an active organisation of student representation and involvement in the formal structures of the university. The systems have been built to be responsive to the needs of the groups whose work and study conditions are affected by collective decisions regarding the running and structure of the university. In such an organic working environment, dialogue and exchange of experiences and feedback are central building blocks in developing functions and academia (Ståhle and Åberg 2012). It can be argued that the core skills for dialogue exist in the conventional academic environment. Thus, the issue becomes whether these skills can be transferred and adapted for use in interaction with the university management and policy planning actors. The interplay between shifts in governmental policy, university governance and internal university dynamics form a complex, continuously changing system. In the Nordic context the converging policies form a dimension that affects the way the national systems develop. These constitute a moulding tool that can either support system development or act as a hindrance to organisational learning. Operationalisation oftheConceptual Framework In order to operationalise the study, six organisational/management mechanisms related to organisational performance were identified (see later). A shared understanding of what performance means in an academic university context was formed in order to ensure a coherent approach to the major issue at hand. An in-depth discussion on the meaning of performance, as well as other central concepts such as accountability, are included K. PULKKINEN ET AL. 21 in Chap. 2 of this volume. Extant literature on organisations more generally, as well as on the nature of higher education systems and universities more specifically, was used to sketch these. These mechanisms are as follows: • Strategy • Decision-making structures • Organisational structures • Accountability measures • Funding arrangements • Cultural climate The study acknowledged that modern universities are complex organisations, and that performance can be achieved in multiple ways. As such, ‘NPM/modern reforms’ is a messy concept; therefore, it was necessary to decompose what so-called new management structures imply for university performance. The six identified mechanisms were a way to acquire more knowledge about what the relationship is between management/governance structures and performance. The next step was to formulate the basic assumptions underpinning the study in light of the research problem following Olsen’s work,1 namely: • there is a direct positive link between governance/management structures and performance (instrumental argument), • there is a direct negative link between governance/management structures and performance (institutional argument) and • there are a number of contingencies between governance/management structures and performance (matching instrumental and institutional views). A series of core hypotheses for each of the six mechanisms were then identified, driving the development of the survey questionnaire and 1 Analytically, Olsen’s four stylised visions models can be reduced to two broad ideal types or archetypes, instrument and institutional or cultural views, with models being ‘variants’ of these archetypes. ‘Market’ models also assume a kind of rationality that build on the same mechanisms as the instrumental model. The ‘democracy’ model builds on a normative assumption about the legitimacy of participation, which connects back to the institutional or ‘cultural’ model. DOES IT REALLY MATTER? ASSESSING THEPERFORMANCE EFFECTS… 22 interview guide.2 These mechanisms are described in some detail later. It should be noted that while these hypotheses were not tested per se in the study, they were instrumental in developing the conceptual framework into a coherent structure. They played an important role as we designed the operationalisation for the gathering of quantitative and qualitative data. The hypotheses were used, for example, to ensure that the two sets of data corresponded with each other and could be utilised to study the same phenomena in a comparable and complementary manner. We return to these hypotheses in the concluding chapter of this book to reflect on their role and meaning in the empirical analysis of our data. The methodological considerations are discussed in more detail in the latter part of this chapter. Strategy • H0: an overarching and penetrating institutional strategy boosts performance • H1: an overarching and penetrating institutional strategy alienates staff and negatively affects performance • H2: strategies that are developed through participation boost performance Decision-Making Structures • H0: more hierarchical decision-making structures stimulate increased performance • H1: more hierarchical decision-making structures negatively affect performance • H2: participatory decision-making structures stimulate increased performance 2 In order to operationalise the study empirically, a series of key questions were devised around eight key themes associated with each of the six mechanisms described above (consult Table1.5 and interview guide and survey template in Appendix). The empirical evidence provided in Part II of this volume sheds light on key findings along selected core themes, emanating from the survey questionnaire and the interview data. K. PULKKINEN ET AL. 23 Organisational Structure • H0: larger, more interdisciplinary structures boost performance • H1: larger, more interdisciplinary structures negatively affect performance • H2: diverse structures are best fitted to the diversity found in universities, and diversity boost performance Accountability Measures • H0: more systematic and regular (intense) reporting boost performance • H1: more systematic and regular (intense) reporting negatively affects performance • H2: it is the way and form of reporting that affect performance Funding Arrangements • H0: more incentive and result-oriented funding boosts performance • H1: more incentive and result-oriented funding negatively affects performance • H2: a mixed funding arrangement is the best way to boost performance Cultural Climate • H0: systematic training and competence building in the organisation boost performance • H1: systematic training and competence building (takes time away from primary activities and) negatively affect performance • H2: cultural change through participatory and trust-based processes drives performance In addition to shedding light on the relationship between the identified mechanisms associated with new management structures and performance, the study also aimed at exploring: DOES IT REALLY MATTER? ASSESSING THEPERFORMANCE EFFECTS… 24 • the linkages amongst the (six) mechanisms, for example, strategy is only effective if combined with hierarchical management and accountability measures; • the possible tensions between the (six) mechanisms, for example, the existence of a strategy arguing for a particular profiling of the organisation may collide with pressure to achieve results in a shorter time frame; and • the relative importance of institutional governance/management structures in relation to national steering frameworks, for example, whether national models override what single universities try to do and how they are organised. Finally, the study aimed to provide new theoretical explanations for how changes in university governance can be interpreted in light of the extant literature and major organisational and public administration theories. Our interest was in the linkages between formal change and performance, although not in a strict causal sense. researcH desIgn andMetHodologIcal consIderatIons This FINNUT project adopted a comparative research design and applied a mixed methods approach (Bryman 2006) comprising a desk-top analysis, surveys and interviews (see Appendix). While the time period 2000–2013 was set as the focus of study, some of the thematic analysis included developments until 2016in order to respond to recent changes brought up in the empirical data, in particular, in the interviews. The desktop analysis consisted of major policy initiatives with national statistics and other official documentation on performance data related to education, research and management of the higher education sector. Such registerbased and performance-related data can be compared across countries and institutions (Ragin and Rihoux 2009). The data provided background material for the further development of the study (in the form of a comprehensive database), and relevant information has been utilised in the individual chapters composing this volume. A large set of new empirical data was collected through surveys and interviews. The target groups of the survey were full-time managerial staff and academics employed at the 54 publicly run universities in Denmark, K. PULKKINEN ET AL. 25 Finland, Norway and Sweden. The survey took place at the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015. The sampling and the definition of the population was done differently in the four countries because of different national higher education systems, availability of sampling frames and also considering the different information needs of national research teams. Table1.2 describes the study’s population, sampling and response rate. The national samples were planned in a manner that allowed for Nordic comparisons. The comparative international subsamples included the respondents working in senior positions (European career levels III and IV) in official management positions or in ordinary academic positions. Table 1.2 Survey population, sampling and response rate Population Sampling Response rate N Denmark Institutions: All Managers N/A 334 Staff categories: II, III, IV (assistant, associate and professor levels, including post docs and managers) Academics (census study) 17% 1989 Finland Institutions: All Staff categories: III, IV Managers: – (census) 44% 199 Managers: (deans, vicedeans, heads of departments, vice-heads of departments) Academics: Systematic random sample (every second) 24% 757 Academics: (University lecturers/researchers, associate professors, research directors, professors) Total: 1038a Norway Institutions: All Staff categories: All – (census study) 10% 1300 Sweden Institutions: 10 out of 16 public universities Managers: – (census) 16% 700 Staff categories: II, III, IV (all academics, including managers, excluding PhD candidates) Academics: Stratified (Systematic random sampling (1/4). Small institutions (<800 academics) simple random sampling of 200) aOf the respondents, 73 did not report about their title, and 9 individuals worked primarily outside Finland DOES IT REALLY MATTER? ASSESSING THEPERFORMANCE EFFECTS… 26 The comparative samples are described in Table1.3. Because the management positions differ from country to country, in comparative samples, the variable ‘are you holding an official management position?’ was used as a categorising variable. This means that the distinctions between academics and academic managers are based on the respondents’ own reporting. The Nordic comparisons were made by using subsamples that best fit for the purpose. For instance, in some cases, it was better to compare only heads of departments and deans, whereas, in other cases, it was more suitable to work with the self-reported official management positions. The most inevitable limitations of the data pertain to the fact that it describes subjective performance, that is, the performance as experienced and reported by the informants. During the research project, a large amount of statistical data on actual (objective) performance was also collected from each country. However, due to the long timescale of the academic performance, national differences in performance measurement and intervening variables, the connection between survey data and statistical data was statistically difficult to establish. Therefore, the survey findings described and explained the subjective performance (Kivistö etal. 2017). For the interviews, we selected two case universities in each of the four countries. We chose to perform the interviews at one of the flagship universities in each country and one regional university. The case universities were multidisciplinary, and the inclusion criteria were that the universities have both natural (including medicine) and social sciences. Within the institutions, we selected participants strategically based on their official positions in the system. These positions were senior academics from the social and the natural sciences, managers from different levels who mainly Table 1.3 Comparative samples of managers and senior academicsa Seniors in official management positions Seniors not holding official management positions Denmark 319 1319 Finland 258 660 Norway 143 721 Sweden 215 289 Total 935 2989 aQuestion: ‘Do you hold an official management position?’ K. PULKKINEN ET AL. 27 had academic backgrounds and professionals in central administration dealing particularly with issues relating to research and teaching, as well as their development. Overall, a total of 93 interviews were conducted between the springs of 2015 and 2016 (Table1.4). A common interview guide was developed. As the selected participants were highly educated people and experts in their fields, we used the elite interviewing approach (Aberbach and Rockman 2002; Goldstein 2002). Such an approach puts an emphasis on giving room to the interviewees to talk freely on the presented themes while ensuring that the different themes are covered so as to be able to compare findings across the cases. A semi-structured interview approach was selected, and the questions were adjusted to the knowledge of the participants. Since quantitative methods are more suitable for providing an overview from a larger audience, and the ability to dig deeper into a theme follows qualitative methodologies, different questions were posed in the survey and interviews. The questions evolved around similar themes (see Table1.5) per the conceptual and analytical framework adopted in the study, as sketched out earlier. The qualitative data generated by the interviews aimed at shedding light on the main drivers of and reactions to Table 1.4 Number of interviewees per country Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Total Managers and administrators 17 14 18 9 58 Academics 11 10 8 6 35 Total 28 24 26 15 93 Table 1.5 Themes for primary data collection Survey themes Interview themes Perceived performance Goal specificity and autonomy Decision-making and strategy Control and evaluation Support structures External stakeholders Trust and accountability Incentives Goal specificity and degree of autonomy Decision-making and strategy Control and evaluation Support structures External stakeholders Trust and accountability Incentives/recognition DOES IT REALLY MATTER? ASSESSING THEPERFORMANCE EFFECTS… 34 G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, and M. Torka, 63–84. Bielefeld: Transaction Publishers. Neave, G. 2003. The Bologna Declaration: Some of the Historic Dilemmas Posed by the Reconstruction of the Community in Europe’s Systems of Higher Education. Educational Policy 17 (1): 141–164. Norden. 2014. The Nordic Model– Challenged but Capable of Reform. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Oliver, Christine. 1991. Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review 16 (1): 145–179. Olsen, J.P. 1988. Administrative Reform and Theories of Organization. In Organizing Governance, Governing Organizations, ed. C. Campbell and B.G.Peters, 233–254. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Olsen, J.P. 2007. The Institutional Dynamics of the European University. In University Dynamics and European Integration, ed. P.Maassen and J.P.Olsen, 25–54. Dordrecht: Springer. Pfeffer, J.1997. New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and Prospects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pinheiro, R. 2012. In the Region, for the Region? A Comparative Study of the Institutionalisation of the Regional Mission of Universities. PhD Diss., Faculty of Education, University of Oslo. Pinheiro, R., P.Benneworth, and G.A.Jones, eds. 2012. Universities and Regional Development: A Critical Assessment of Tensions and Contradictions. Milton Park and NewYork: Routledge. Pinheiro, R., L. Geschwind, and T. Aarrevaara. 2014. Nested Tensions and Interwoven Dilemmas in Higher Education: The View from the Nordic Countries. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 7 (2): 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsu002. Pinheiro, R., and B.Stensaker. 2013. Designing the Entrepreneurial University: The Interpretation of a Global Idea. Public Organization Review 14 (4): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-013-0241-z. Powell, W., and J.Colyvas. 2008. Microfoundations of Institutional Theory. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, ed. R.Greenwood, K.Sahlin Christine Oliver, and R.Suddaby, 276–298. London: Sage. Powell, W.W., and P.DiMaggio. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ragin, Charles C., and Benoît Rihoux. 2009. Configurational Comparative Methods. Los Angeles: Sage. Ramirez, F.O. 2010. Accounting for Excellence: Transforming Universities into Organizational Actors. In Higher Education, Policy, and the Global Competition Phenomenon, ed. Laura Portnoi, Val Rust, and Sylvia Bagely, 43–58. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Ramirez, Francisco O., and T. Christensen. 2013. The Formalization of the University: Rules, Roots, and Routes. Higher Education 65 (6): 695–708. K. PULKKINEN ET AL. 35 Rip, Arie. 2004. Strategic Research, Post-modern Universities and Research Training. Higher Education Policy 17 (2): 153–166. Sabatier, P. 2005. From Policy Implementation to Policy Change: A Personal Odyssey. In Reform and Change in Higher Education. Higher Education Dynamics, ed. Å. Gornitzka, M.Kogan, and A.Amaral, vol. 8. Dordrecht: Springer. Scott, W.R. 2003. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. NewYork: Prentice Hall. ———. 2008. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. London: Sage. Seeber, Marco, Benedetto Lepori, Martina Montauti, Jürgen Enders, Harry De Boer, Elke Weyer, Ivar Bleiklie, Kristin Hope, Svein Michelsen, and Gigliola Nyhagen Mathisen. 2015. European Universities as Complete Organizations? Understanding Identity, Hierarchy and Rationality in Public Organizations. Public Management Review 17 (10): 1444–1474. Selznick, Philip. 1966. TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization. NewYork: Harper & Row. Selznick, Philip. 1984. Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Shahjahan, R.A., and M.Madden. 2015. Uncovering the Images and Meanings of International Organizations (IOs) in Higher Education Research. Higher Education 69 (5): 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9801-6. Slaughter, Sheila, and Brendan Cantwell. 2012. Transatlantic Moves to the Market: The United States and the European Union. Higher Education 63 (5): 583–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9460-9. Slaughter, S., and L.L.Leslie. 1999. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., and B.J.Taylor, eds. 2016. Competitive Advantage: Stratification, Privatization and Vocationalization of Higher Education in the US, EU, and Canada, Higher Education Dynamics. Dordrecht: Springer. Ståhle, P., and L. Åberg. 2012. Voiko yliopiston uudistumista johtaa? (Can the Renewal of Universities Be Managed?). In Innostava yliopisto (An Inspiring University), ed. Pirjo Ståhle and Antti Ainamo. Gaudeamus. Stensaker, B. 2014. Troublesome Institutional Autonomy: Governance and the Distribution of Authority in Norwegian Universities. In International Trends in University Governance: Autonomy, Self-Government and the Distribution of Authority, ed. M.Shattock, 34–48. NewYork: Routledge. Tapper, T., and D.Palfreyman. 2011. Oxford, the Collegiate University: Conflict, Consensus and Continuity. Dordrecht: Springer. Teichler, U. 2005. Research on Higher Education in Europe. European Journal of Education 40 (4): 447. Thompson, J.D. 2008. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. 5th ed. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. DOES IT REALLY MATTER? ASSESSING THEPERFORMANCE EFFECTS… 36 Trow, M., and M.Burrage. 2010. Twentieth-Century Higher Education: Elite to Mass to Universal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Verhoest, K., B.G.Peters, G.Bouckaert, and B.Verschuere. 2004. The Study of Organisational Autonomy: A Conceptual Review. Public Administration and Development 24: 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.316. Voegtle, E.M., C. Knill, and M. Dobbins. 2011. To What Extent Does Transnational Communication Drive Cross-National Policy Convergence? The Impact of the Bologna-Process on Domestic Higher Education Policies. Higher Education 61: 77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9326-6. Weick, K.E. 1976. Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (1): 1–19. Whitley, R. 2008. Constructing Universities as Strategic Actors: Limitations and Variations. In The University in the Market, ed. L.Engwall and D.Weaire. London: Portland Press Ltd. Williams, G., and I. Kitaev. 2005. Overview of National Policy Contexts for Entrepreneurialism in Higher Education Institutions. Higher Education Management and Policy 17 (3): 125–141. Witte, Johanna. 2008. Aspired Convergence, Cherished Diversity: Dealing with the Contradictions of Bologna. Tertiary Education and Management 14 (2): 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583880802051840. Zechlin, L. 2010. Strategic Planning in Higher Education. In International Encyclopedia of Education, ed. P.Peterson, E.Baker, and B.McGaw, 256–263. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. K. PULKKINEN ET AL.