Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Universities act differently: identification of organizational effectiveness criteria for faculties

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Tertiary Education and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reforms in higher education according to new public management (NPM) have led to so-called managerial universities, which place a stronger focus on effectiveness and efficiency, causing profound changes in related organizational structures, which in turn must support target attainment to achieve organizational effectiveness. An overview of research shows that the organizational effectiveness of faculties has hardly been investigated so far. Moreover, there are no effectiveness criteria for the organization of faculties, post-reform. The present article aims to identify effectiveness criteria for the organization of faculties. Guided interviews were conducted with 16 experts from different universities working in faculty management. Both open and specific questions about the general criteria of effectiveness, as derived from the literature, were used. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The results show continuity, trust, transparency and relief as inductively identified criteria. Communication and information supply, environmental orientation, decision-making quality and motivation were confirmed as effectiveness criteria from the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abfalter, D. (2010). Das Unmessbare messen: Die Konstruktion von Erfolg im Musiktheater. Wiesbaden: VS.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Amaral, A., Meek, L., & Waelgaard, L. (Eds.). (2003). The higher education managerial revolution? Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, G. (2006). Carving out time and space in the managerial university. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(5), 578–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badelt, C., Meyer, M., & Simsa, R. (2007). Handbuch der Nonprofit Organisation: Strukturen und Management (4th ed.). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badrtdinov, N. N., & Gorobets, D. V. (2016). Evaluation of the effectiveness of management development institutions of higher education on the basis of the factor and criterion model. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(18), 12167–12182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bea, F. X., & Göbel, E. (2010). Organisation. In Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius (4th ed.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Birdsall, C. (2018). Performance Management in Public Higher Education: Unintended consequences and the implications of organizational diversity. Public Performance & Management Review, 41(4), 669–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D., & Merrien, F. (1999). Governance of universities and modernisation of the state: Analytical aspects. In D. Braun & F. Merrien (Eds.), Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view (pp. 9–33). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broucker, B. (2018). Higher education for public value: Taking the debate beyond new public management. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(2), 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000). Constructing organizations: The example of public sector reform. Organization Studies, 21(4), 721–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bünting, H. (1995). Organisatorische Effektivität von Unternehmungen: Ein zielorientierter Ansatz. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K. (1978). Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 604–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K. (1986). A study of organizational effectiveness and its predictors. Management Science, 32, 87–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. (2011). University governance reforms: Potential problems of more autonomy? Higher Education, 62(4), 503–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dart, R. (2010). A grounded qualitative study of the meanings of effectiveness in Canadian ‘results-focused’ environmental organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(2), 202–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, E., Gomez-Sancho, J., & Perez-Esparrells, C. (2017). Comparing university performance by legal status: A Malmquist-type index approach for the case of the Spanish higher education system. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(3), 206–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften (5. ed.). Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Epping, V. (2007). Der Dekan: Vom „Primus inter pares“ zum „CEO“. Forschung und Lehre, 14(8), 456–457.

  • Flick, U. (2016). Qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Einführung (7th ed.). Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frese, E. (1992). Organisationsstrukturen, mehrdimensionale. In E. Frese (Ed.), Handwörterbuch der Organisation (3rd ed., pp. 1670–1688). Stuttgart: C.E. Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, R., & Renz, D. (2004). Doing things right: Effectiveness in local nonprofit organizations: A panel study. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 694–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M., Keats, B., & Purdum, S. (1983). Affirmative action effectiveness criteria in institutions of higher education. Research in Higher Education, 18(4), 391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2018). Higher education in Germany - recent developments in an international perspective. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, L., & Probst, T. (2015). Do your employees (collectively) trust you? The importance of trust climate beyond individual trust. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(4), 526–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jing, L., & Zhang, D. (2014). Does organizational commitment help to Promote University Faculty’s performance and effectiveness? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(2), 201–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, M., & LeRoux, K. (2013). Managerial networking in nonprofit organizations: The impact of networking on organizational and advocacy effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 73(2), 355–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadirbeyoglu, Z., Adaman, F., & Özkaynak, B. (2017). The effectiveness of environmental civil society organizations: An integrated analysis of organizational characteristics and contextual factors. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(4), 1717–1741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaur, H., & Bhalla, G. S. (2018). Determinants of effectiveness in public higher education-students’ viewpoint. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(6), 1135–1155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehm, B., Merkator, N., & Schneijderberg, C. (2010). Hochschulprofessionelle?! Die unbekannten Wesen. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 5(4), 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kromrey, H., Roose, J., & Strübing, J. (2016). Empirische Sozialforschung (13th ed.). Konstanz: UVK.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.), Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz von Politiken. Politische Vierteljahresschrift: Sonderheft (Vol. 38, pp. 522–548). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, N., Horch, F., & Berthold, C. (2006). Fakultätsmanagement. In C. Berthold, B. Tag, H. Seidler, & G. Scholz (Eds.), Handbuch Praxis Wissenschaftsfinanzierung (p. A 1.5). Berlin: Raabe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leichsenring, H. (2009). Befragung zum Fakultätsmanagement 2009 – Management im Team: Perspektiven von Fakultätsmanager (inne) n und Dekan (inn)en. Gütersloh: CHE Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung.

  • Lewis, J. (2013). Academic governance: Disciplines and policy. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N., & Yan, J. (2009). The effects of trust climate on individual performance. Frontiers of Business Research in China March, 3(1), 27–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liket, K. C., & Maas, K. (2015). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Analysis of best practices. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 268–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lysons, A. (1990). Dimensions and domains of organisational effectiveness in Australian higher education. Higher Education, 20(3), 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lysons, A. (1993). The typology of organizational effectiveness in Australian higher education. Research in Higher Education, 34(4), 465–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lysons, A., & Hatherly, D. (1996). Predicting a taxonomy of organisational effectiveness in U.K. higher educational institutions. Higher Education, 32(1), 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macheridis, N. (2018). Balancing authority and autonomy in higher education by implementing an agile project management approach. Tertiary Education and Management, 24(2), 128–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical Foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt: SSOAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (12th ed.). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, F. (2009). Die Universität als Akteur. Zum institutionellen Wandel in der Hochschulorganisation. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Jentsch, W. (2003). Organisationssoziologie. Eine Einführung. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Flynn, J. (2007). From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(3), 353–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palvia, P., Leary, D., Mao, E., Midha, V., Pinjani, P., & Salam, A. F. (2004). Research methodologies in MIS: An update. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 14(1), 526–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasternack, P. (1998). Effizienz, Effektivität & Legitimität. Die deutsche Hochschulreformdebatte am Ende der 90er Jahre. HoF-Arbeitsbericht (4). Halle-Wittenberg: Institut für Hochschulforschung, 5–30.

  • Pfeffer, J. (1977). Usefulness of the concept. In P. Goodman & J. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effectiveness (pp. 132–143). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pounder, J. (1999). Organizational effectiveness in higher education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 27(4), 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodwell, J., McWilliams, J., & Gulyas, A. (2017). The impact of characteristics of nurses' relationships with their supervisor, engagement and trust, on performance behaviours and intent to quit. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(1), 190–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushing, W. (1974). Differences in profit and nonprofit organizations: A study of effectiveness and efficiency in general short-stay hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4), 474–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherm, E., & Pietsch, G. (2007). Organisation. München: Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneijderberg, C. (2013). Hopros als Teil des Hochschulmanagements. In C. Schneijderberg, N. Merkator, U. Teichler, & B. M. Kehm (Eds.), Verwaltung war gestern? (pp. 199–244). Frankfurt: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, C. (1992). Effektivität und Effizienz, organisatorische. In E. Frese (Ed.), Handwörterbuch der Organisation (3rd ed., pp. 534–552). Stuttgart: C.E. Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, C. (1997). Strategische Organisation – Prinzipien zur Vitalisierung und Virtualisierung (2nd ed.). Landsberg/Lech: Moderne Industrie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. (1986). Organizations. Rational, Natural and Open Systems. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shilbury, D., & Moore, K. (2006). A study of organizational effectiveness for national Olympic sporting organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 5–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siddique, A., Aslam, H. D., Khan, M., & Fatima, U. (2011). Impact of academic leadership on Faculty’s motivation, and organizational effectiveness in higher education system. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(8), 184–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C. (2003). Organizational effectiveness of 2-year colleges: The centrality of cultural and leadership complexity. Research in Higher Education, 44(6), 673–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., Kuh, G. D., & Tierney, G. (1997). The role of institutional cultures and decision approaches in promoting organizational effectiveness in two year colleges. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(3), 256–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steers, R. (1977). Organizational Effectiveness: A Behavioral View. Santa Monica: Goodyear.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinke, I. (1999). Kriterien qualitativer Forschung: Ansätze zur Bewertung qualitativ-empirischer Sozialforschung. München: Juventa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strübing, J. (2014). Was ist Grounded Theory? In J. Strübing (Ed.), Grounded Theory (3rd ed., pp. 9–35). Wiesbaden: VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strübing, J., Hirschauer, S., Ayaß, R., Krähnke, U., & Scheffer, T. (2018). Gütekriterien qualitativer Sozialforschung. Ein Diskussionsanstoß - criteria for qualitative research. A stimulus for discussion. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 47(2), 83–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogelsang, K., Steinhüser, M., Hoppe, U. (2013). A qualitative approach to examine technology acceptance, Proceedings of ICIS 2013, Milan.

  • Webster, D. (1981). Advantages and disadvantages of methods of assessing quality. Change, 13(7), 20–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werder, A. (2004). Organisatorische Gestaltung (Organization Design). In G. Schreyögg & A. Werder (Eds.), Handwörterbuch Unternehmensführung und Organisation (4th ed., pp. 1088–1101). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Pöschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, I., & Shearer, H. (2011). Appraising public value: Past, present and futures. Public Administration, 89(4), 1367–1384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woelert, P., & Yates, L. (2015). Too little and too much trust: Performance measurement in Australian higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 56(2), 175–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolter, A. (2007). From the academic republic to the managerial university – The implementation of new governance structures in German higher education. In University of Tsukuba, Research Center for University Studies (Ed.), The 3rd international workshop on reforms of higher education in six countries – Commonalities and differences. Tokyo: University of Tsukuba. 111–132.

  • Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S. (1967). A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32, 891–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegele, F. (2005). Die Umsetzung von neuen Steuerungsmodellen (NSM) im Hochschulrecht. In R. Fisch & S. Koch (Eds.), Neue Steuerung von Bildung und Wissenschaft (pp. 107–121). Bonn: Lemmens.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Prof. Dr. Uwe Hoppe, Prof. Dr. Georg Krücken, Dr. Kristin Vogelsang, Dr. Isabel Steinhardt, Kirsten Liere-Netheler, Philipp Friedrich, Ilona Hadasch, Tim Hoff, Jennifer Jacob, Leonie Schoelen for their valuable discussion input.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany

    Ilse Hagerer

Authors
  1. Ilse Hagerer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilse Hagerer.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hagerer, I. Universities act differently: identification of organizational effectiveness criteria for faculties. Tert Educ Manag 25, 273–287 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-09031-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-09031-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation