Designing the Organizational Future How German Universities communicate Governance Changes by means of Corporate Design
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Purpose: Over the last decades, universities in general have seen an increase in managerial top-down policies, often pertaining to strategic organizational communication. This paper, in addressing such managerial policies, does focus on German universities as they provide an interesting context to explore the rise of strategic organizational communication as a managerial practice. German universities grant full legal autonomy to their chairholders, and thus, faculty compliance with top management policies cannot be exacted. From there, it seems worthwhile exploring how university management tries to initiate compliance by communicative means. One prominent communication strategy pertains to Corporate Design (CD): university administrations disseminate guidelines as to the use of all forms of planned, visual communication. With this managerial practice in view, we explore arguments employed in exemplary CD guidelines. The overall aim is to show how management attempts to initiate faculty compliance via rational and persuasive communication.
Frame: This case study combines Bourdieusian field theory with neo-institutionalist and narratological approaches. In order to explore how university leadership tries to assert governance claims, we refer, in particular, to the concepts of field struggles, isomorphic change, and legitimacy.
Approach: Our case study concentrates on the attempted implementation of CD in German universities. Our sample comprises 40 CD manuals, most of them with official prefaces by university presidents. In order to detect dominant themes in these manuals we employ thematic analysis.
Findings: We find that CD policies are being used, by management, as a strategic marketing instrument for external communication, as well as a soft, internal governance instrument. We identify two dominant themes: First, university leadership argues in favor of CD by referring to external and internal stakeholders (legitimation). With a view to external stakeholders, management argues that CD is an important communication instrument of differentiation in a perceived university ‘market’. As to internal stakeholders, CD is intended to integrate both individual scholars, as well as scholarly sub-units into an overarching organizational structure. In this case, we consider CD to be a specific symbolic mode of communication aiming to have impact on the university’s perception externally and internally. Second, we find different persuasive management strategies supposed to actually make faculty employ the new CD (governance). Here, we identify highly different communication strategies, ranging from direct orders to appeals. The variety in strategic communication reveals the organizational paradox of restricted legal governance options, and the new managerial claim to governance.
Implications: We contribute to higher education and organizational communication research by revealing homogeneic rationales for an isomorphic change process that are being described as differentiation. We alert that legal professorial autonomy may slowly be eroded by means of consistent strategic communication.
Article Details
The journal is published under a Creative Commons license Attribution Non-commercial No derivatives (cc by-nc-sa) http://creativecommons.org/about/license. CLaW allows the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions. Copyright remains with authors without restrictions.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1975). The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason. Social Science Information, 14(6), 19–47.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (2004). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brunsson, N. (2002). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations (2. ed.). Copenhagen: Business School Press.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (2018). Excellence Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.bmbf.de/en/excellence-strategy-5425.html
Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bundesrepublik Deutschland 23.05.1949.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clark, B. R. (2001). The Entrepreneurial University: New Foundations for Collegiality, Autonomy, and Achievement. Higher Education Management, 13(2), 9–24.
Clark, B. R. (2004). Sustaining Change in Universities: Continuities in Case Studies and Concepts. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2004). Corporate Communication. Theory and Practice. London, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Cornelissen, J. P., Haslam, S. A., & Balmer, J. M. T. (2007). Social Identity, Organizational Identity and Corporate Identity: Towards an Integrated Understanding of Processes, Patternings and Products. British Journal of Management, 18(1), 1–16.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does Isomorphism Legitimate? The Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1024–1039.
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.
Dörre, K., & Neis, M. (2010). Das Dilemma der unternehmerischen Universität: Hochschulen zwischen Wissensproduktion und Marktzwang. Forschung aus der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung: Vol. 116. Berlin: Ed. Sigma.
DuBrin, A. J. (2011). Impression Management in the Workplace: Research, Theory, and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Elias, N. (1987). Die Gesellschaft der Individuen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Fay, D. L., & Zavattaro, S. M. (2016). Branding and Isomorphism: The Case of Higher Education. Public Administration Review, 76(5), 805–815.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin.
Graf, A. (2019). Kohäsion durch Kampf?! Überlegungen zur Bedeutung von Loyalität für Hochschulen. Zeitschrift für Diskursforschung, 7(1), 94–112.
Graf, A., Reitz, T., & Möller, C. (2016). Nicht förderungswürdig: Weshalb die Evaluation der Exzellenzinitiative gegen deren Fortsetzung spricht. sub\urban, 4(2/3), 221–232.
Grande, E., Jansen, D., Jarren, O., Rip, A., Schimank, U., & Weingart, P. (Eds.). (2013). Neue Governance der Wissenschaft: Reorganisation - externe Anforderungen - Medialisierung. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Hartmann, M. (2006). Die Exzellenzinitiative: Ein Paradigmenwechsel in der deutschen Hochschulpolitik. Leviathan, 34(4), 447–465.
Hartmann, M. (2010). Die Exzellenzinitiative und ihre Folgen. Leviathan, 38(3), 369–387.
Höhne, T. (2019). Keynote: Economization of Higher Education [Ökonomisierung von Hochschule und Hochschulbildung]. Paper presented at the Frühjahrstagung der Sektion “Bildung und Erziehung“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie (DGS), Entwicklungen im Feld der Hochschule, Hannover.
Hüther, O. (2010). Von der Kollegialität zur Hierarchie? Eine Analyse des New Managerialism in den Landeshochschulgesetzen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2011). Wissenschaftliche Karriere und Beschäftigungsbedingungen. Soziale Welt, 62(3), 305–325.
Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2013). Hierarchy and Power: A Conceptual Analysis with Particular Reference to New Public Management Reforms in German Universities. European Journal of Higher Education, 3(4), 307–323.
Janning, F. (2004). Habitus und Organisation: Ertrag der Bourdieuschen Problemformulierungen und alternative Konzeptualisierungsvorschläge. In J. Ebrecht & F. Hillebrandt (Eds.), Bourdieus Theorie der Praxis: Erklärungskraft - Anwendung - Perspektiven (2nd ed., pp. 97–123). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Jansen, D. (Ed.). (2010). Governance and Performance in the German Public Research Sector: Disciplinary Differences. Higher Education Dynamics: Vol. 32. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kloke, K., & Krücken, G. (2012). Sind Universitäten noch lose gekoppelte Organisationen? Wahrnehmung und Umgang mit Zielkonflikten an deutschen Hochschulen aus der Organisationsperspektive unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der akademischen Lehre. In F. G. Becker, G. Krücken, & E. Wild (Eds.), Gute Lehre in der Hochschule: Wirkungen von Anreizen, Kontextbedingungen und Reformen (pp. 13–29). wbv.
Konsortium Bundesbericht Wissenschaftlicher Nachwuchs. (2017). Bundesbericht Wissenschaftlicher Nachwuchs 2017. Statistische Daten und Forschungsbefunde zu Promovierenden und Promovierten in Deutschland: BuWiN. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology (3rd ed.). London, Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Krücken, G., Blümel, A., & Kloke, K. (2009). Towards Organizational Actorhood of Universities: Occupational and Organizational Change within German University Administration (FÖV Discussion Papers No. 48). Speyer.
Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the University into an Organizational Actor. In G. S. Drori, H. Hwang, & J. W. Meyer (Eds.), Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change (pp. 241–257). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Lange, S., & Schimank, U. (2007). Zwischen Konvergenz und Pfadabhängigkeit: New Public Management in den Hochschulsystemen fünf ausgewählter OECD-Länder. In K. Holzinger, H. Jörgens, & C. Knill (Eds.), Politische Vierteljahresschrift Sonderheft 38/2007. Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz von Politiken (pp. 522–548). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften / GWV Fachverlage GmbH Wiesbaden.
Lueg, K. (2018). Organizational Changes towards a European Academic Field: A Case Study of Frictions in the Narratives of Europeanization at a German University from an Institutional Perspective. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 31(4), 484–503.
Lueg, K., & Nielsen, C. (2015). Impression Management as Symbolic Capital: An Intercultural Comparison of Presentations by CEOs on Social Network Sites. Communication & Language at Work, 4(4), 88–120.
Lundholt, M., & Uldal, A. (2019). Leadership Communication in Theory and Practice. Coppenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Maasen, S., & Weingart, P. (2006). Unternehmerische Universität und neue Wissenschaftskultur. Die Hochschule. (1), 19–45.
Markschies, C. (2007). Die Exzellenz und der Exzellenz-Wettbewerb. Gegenworte. (17), 16–19.
Meier, F. (2009). Die Universität als Akteur: Zum institutionellen Wandel der Hochschulorganisation. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Meier, F. (2010). Die managerialisierte Universität – Zum Organisationswandel der Hochschule. Bremen.
Melewar, T. C., & Akel, S. (2005). The Role of Corporate Identity in the Higher Education Sector. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(1), 41–57.
Melewar, T. C., & Jenkins, E. (2002). Defining the Corporate Identity Construct. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(1), 76–91.
Mitchell, C. (2002). Selling the Brand Inside. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 99–126.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
Münch, R. (2006, November 6). Exzellenz ohne Legitimität: Machtkartelle und Oligarchien siegen über Leistung: Wie im Elitewettbewerb entschieden wurde. Der Tagesspiegel.
Münch, R. (2007). Die akademische Elite: Zur sozialen Konstruktion wissenschaftlicher Exzellenz. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Münch, R. (2008). Stratifikation durch Evaluation: Mechanismen der Konstruktion von Statushierarchien in der Forschung. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 37(1), 60–80.
Münch, R. (2009). Stratifikation der Hochschullandschaft: Zwischen Leistungswettbewerb und Machtlogik. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 55(2), 258–273.
Münch, R. (2011). Akademischer Kapitalismus: Über die politische Ökonomie der Hochschulreform. Edition Suhrkamp: Vol. 2633. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Neumann, A. (2015). Die Exzellenzinitiative: Deutungsmacht und Wandel im Wissenschaftssystem. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., . . . Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in Qualitative Research: Exploring its Conceptualization and Operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907.
Scherm, E. (2013). Die “unternehmerische“ Universität: Vom Reformleitbild zum Managementalltag. Die Hochschule. (2), 85–95.
Schimank, U. (2005). Die akademische Profession und die Universität: ›New Public Management‹ und eine drohende Entprofessionalisierung. In T. Klatetzki & V. Tacke (Eds.), Organisation und Profession (pp. 143–164). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stensaker, B., & Norgård, J. D. (2001). Innovation and Isomorphism: A Case-Study of University Identity Struggle 1969-1999. Higher Education, 42(4), 473–492.
Stock, M. (2004). Steuerung als Fiktion: Anmerkungen zur Implementierung der neuen Steuerungskonzepte an Hochschulen aus organisationssoziologischer Sicht. Die Hochschule, 13(1), 30–48.
Stock, M. (2006). Zwischen Organisation und Profession: Das neue Modell der Hochschulsteuerung in soziologischer Perspektive. Die Hochschule. (2), 67–79.
Stock, M., & Wernet, A. (2005). Hochschulforschung und Theorie der Profession. Die Hochschule, 14(1), 7–14.
Strohschneider, P. (2009). Über Voraussetzungen und Konzeption der Exzellenzinitiative. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 31(1), 8–25.
Van Riel, C. B. M. (1995). Principles of Corporate Communication. London: Prentice Hall.
Wang, Y. (2016). Homology and Isomorphism: Bourdieu in Conversation with New Institutionalism. The British Journal of Sociology, 67(2), 348–370.
Weingart, P. (2010). Die “unternehmerische Universität“. In D. Gugerli, M. Hagner, P. Sarasin, & J. Tanner (Eds.), Nach Feierabend: Vol. 6. Nach Feierabend 2010: Wissen! Welches Wissen? (pp. 55–72). Zürich: Diaphanes.
Wilkesmann, U., & Schmid, C. J. (Eds.). (2012). Hochschule als Organisation. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.