PL EN
PRACA ORYGINALNA
„Twardy” a „miękki” menedżeryzm. Jak reformować uniwersytety i pozwolić im pozostać uniwersytetami
 
 
Więcej
Ukryj
1
Department of Institutional Economics and Microeconomics, University of Lodz, Poland
AUTOR DO KORESPONDENCJI
Piotr Urbanek   

Department of Institutional Economics and Microeconomics, University of Lodz, Poland
Data nadesłania: 09-04-2022
Data ostatniej rewizji: 06-06-2022
Data akceptacji: 21-09-2022
Data publikacji: 30-12-2022
 
GNPJE 2022;312(4):89–102
 
SŁOWA KLUCZOWE
KODY KLASYFIKACJI JEL
STRESZCZENIE
Transformacja instytucji akademickich inspirowana ideą new public management wprowadza nowy paradygmat zarządzania uczelnią. Istotą nowego modelu uczelni jest przeniesienie korporacyjnych struktur władzy i praktyk menedżerskich do akademickiego środowiska instytucjonalnego. Takie podejście do reformy uniwersyteckiej nawiązuje do koncepcji „twardego” menedżeryzmu. Jeśli władze uczelni akceptują narzucone nowe, menedżerskie reguły gry, wzmacniają system oparty na logice odbiegającej od tradycyjnych akademickich norm. Jednak mogą też próbować utrzymać instytucje zakorzenione w akademickiej logice instytucjonalnej, co wymaga alternatywnego podejścia mieszczącego się w koncepcji „miękkiego” menedżeryzmu. W artykule pokazano, że kolegialność i menedżeryzm nie muszą oznaczać wykluczających się przeciwieństw. Te dwie pozornie sprzeczne idee mogą współistnieć w postaci „miękkiej” wersji menedżeryzmu, w jego zhumanizowanej lub neokolegialnej formie. Wymaga to przedefiniowania struktur zarządzania uczelnią przy jednoczesnym zachowaniu tradycyjnych norm i wartości akademickich. Autor artykułu zastosował metodę badawczą krytycznej analizy literatury.
 
REFERENCJE (75)
1.
Antonowicz D. [2019], Zarządzanie szkolnictwem wyższym i jego przejrzysty ustrój a autonomia instytucji akademickich, Centrum Studiów nad Polityką Publiczną UAM, Poznań.
 
2.
Antonowicz D., Machnikowska A., Szot A., [2020], Innowacje i konserwatyzm 2.0. Polskie uczelnie w procesie przemian, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, Toruń.
 
3.
Austin I., Jones G. A. [2016], Governance of Higher Education. Global Perspectives, Theories, and Practices, Routledge, New York.
 
4.
Bacon E. [2014], Neo-collegiality: restoring academic engagement in the managerial University, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, London.
 
5.
Birnbaum R. [2004], The End of Shared Governance: Looking Ahead or Looking Back, New Directions for Higher Education, 127: 5–22.
 
6.
Bleiklie I. [2005], Academic Leadership and Emerging Knowledge Regimes, in: Bleiklie I., Henkel M. [eds.], Governing Knowledge. A Study of Continuity and Change in Higher Education. A Festschrift in Honour of Maurice Kogan: 189–212, Springer, Dorchester.
 
7.
Bleiklie I., Enders J., Lepori B. [2017], Organisational Configurations of Modern Universities, Institutional Logics and Public Policies – Towards an Integrative Framework, in: Bleiklie I., Enders J., Lepori B. (eds.), Managing Universities. Policy and Organizational Change from a Western European Comparative Perspective: 303–326, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
 
8.
Boer H. de, Denters B., Goedegebuure L. [1998], On Boards and Councils: Shaky Balances Considered. The Governance of Dutch Universities, Higher Education Policy, 11: 153–164.
 
9.
Boer H. de, Enders J., Westerheijden D. F. [2005], From paper to practice: two reforms and their consequences in Dutch higher education, in: Gornitzka A., Kogan M., Amaral A. (eds.), Reform and Change in Higher Education. Analysing Policy Implementation: 97–116, Springer, Dordrecht.
 
10.
Boer H. de, File J. [2009], Higher Education Governance Reforms Across Europe, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente, Enschede.
 
11.
Boer H. de, File J. [2011], Old Wine in New Skins: The Long Evolution of Supervisory Boards in Dutch Higher Education, in: Enders J., Boer H. de, Westerheijden D. F. (eds.), Reform of Higher Education in Europe: 159–172, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
 
12.
Boer H. de, Goedegebuure L. [2003], New Rules of the Game? Reflections on Governance, Management and System Change, in: File J., Goedegebuure L. (eds.), Real-time Systems. Reflections on Higher Education in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia: 207–232, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, Enschede.
 
13.
Boer H. de, Huisman J. [2019], Governance trends in European higher education, in: Jarvis D., Capano G. (eds.), Convergence and Diversity in the Governance of Higher Education: Comparative Perspectives: 1–22, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
 
14.
Boer H. de, Stensaker B. [2007], An internal representative system: The democratic vision, in: Maassen P., Olsen J. P. (eds.), University dynamics and European integration: 99–118, Springer, Dordrecht.
 
15.
Burnes B., Wend P., By R. T. [2014], The changing face of English universities: reinventing collegiality for the twenty-first century, Studies in Higher Education, 39 (6): 905–926.
 
16.
Burnes B., Wend P., Todnem R. [2014], The changing face of English universities: reinventing collegiality for the twenty-first century, Studies in Higher Education, 39 (6): 905–926.
 
17.
Canhilal K. S., Lepori B., Seeber M. [2016], Decision-Making Power and Institutional Logic in Higher Education Institutions: A Comparative Analysis of European Universities, in: Towards a Comparative Institutionalism: Forms, Dynamics and Logics across the Organizational Fields of Health Care and Higher Education: 169–194.
 
18.
Clark B. R. [1983], The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Crossnational Perspectives, California University Press, Berkeley.
 
19.
Clark B. R. [1998], Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organisational Pathways of Transformations, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
 
20.
Clark B. R. [2004], Sustaining Change in Universities. Continuities in Case Studies and Concepts, Open University Press, Maidenhead.
 
21.
Dearlove J. [2002], A Continuing Role for Academics: the Governance of UK Universities in the Post-Dearing Era, Higher Education Quarterly, 56 (3): 257–275.
 
22.
Deem R. [1998], “New managerialism” and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8 (1), 47–70.
 
23.
Donina D., Hasanefendic S. [2018], Higher education institutional governance reforms in the Netherlands, Portugal and Italy: A policy translation perspective addressing the homogeneous/heterogeneous dilemma, Higher Education Quarterly, Special Issue, 1: 16.
 
24.
Dooley A. H. [2007], The Role of Academic Boards in University Governance, AUQA Occasional Publications, 12, Australian Universities Quality Agency, Melbourne.
 
25.
Duderstadt J. [2004], Governing the twenty-first century university: A view from the bridge, in: Tierney W. (ed.), Competing Conceptions of Academic Governance: 137–157, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
 
26.
Elton L. [2008], Collegiality and Complexity: Humboldt’s Relevance to British Universities Today, Higher Education Quarterly, 62 (3): 224–236.
 
27.
Gherardi S., Jensen K., Nerland M. [2017], Shadow organising: A metaphor to explore organising as intra-relating, Qualitative Research in Organisations and Management: An International Journal, 12 (1): 2–17.
 
28.
Glynn M. A. [2000], When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organisational identity within a symphony orchestra, Organization Science, 11 (3): 285–298.
 
29.
Gornitzka A., Kyvik S., Stensaker B. [2005], Implementation analysis in higher education, in: Gornitzka A., Kogan M., Amaral A. (eds.), Reform and Change in Higher Education. Analysing Policy Implementation: 35–57, Springer, Dordrecht.
 
30.
Hampel Report [1998], Committee on Corporate Governance: Final Report, The Committee on Corporate Governance and Gee Publishing Ltd.
 
31.
Hellawell D., Hancock N. [2001], A case study of the changing role of the academic middle manager in higher education: between hierarchical control and collegiality?, Research Papers in Education, 16 (2): 183–197.
 
32.
Hogan R., Curphy G. J., Hogan J. [1994], What we know about leadership, American Psychologist, 49 (6): 493–504.
 
33.
Jarvis A. [2021], Untangling collegiality and distributed leadership: Equality versus utility. A perspective piece, Management in Education: 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1177/089202....
 
34.
Kligyte G., Barrie S. [2014], Collegiality: Leading us into fantasy – the paradoxical resilience of collegiality in academic leadership, Higher Education Research and Development, 33 (1): 157–169.
 
35.
Knight P. T., Trowler P. R. [2000], Department-level cultures and the improvement of learning and teaching, Studies in Higher Education, 25 (1): 69–83.
 
36.
Kogan M. [2007], The Academic Profession and its Interface with Management, in: Kogan M., Teichler U. (eds.), Key Challenges to the Academic Profession: 159–174, International Centre for Higher Education Research, Kassel.
 
37.
Kogan M., Hanney S. [2000], Reforming Higher Education, Jessica Kingsley, London.
 
38.
Kwiek M. [2012], The growing complexity of the academic enterprise in Europe: a panoramic view, European Journal of Higher Education, 3 (2): 1–20.
 
39.
Kwiek M. [2017], Wprowadzenie: Reforma szkolnictwa wyższego w Polsce i jej wyzwania. Jak stopniowa dehermetyzacja systemu prowadzi do jego stratyfikacji, Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe, 2 (50): 9–38.
 
40.
Lapworth S. [2004], Arresting Decline in Shared Governance: Towards a Flexible Model for Academic Participation, Higher Education Quarterly, 58 (4): 299–314.
 
41.
Lynch K., Grummell B. [2018], New managerialism as an organisational form of neoliberalism, in: Sowa F., Staples R., Zapfel S. (eds.), The Transformation of Work in Welfare State Organizations: New Public Management and the Institutional Diffusion of Ideas: 193–213, Routledge, London.
 
42.
Maassen P. [2017], The university’s governance paradox, Higher Education Quarterly, 71: 290–298.
 
43.
Maassen P., Olsen J. P. [2007], European Debates on the Knowledge Institution: The Modernisation of the University at the European Level, in: Maassen P., Olsen J. P. (eds.), University dynamics and European integration: 3–24, Springer, Dordrecht.
 
44.
Maassen P., Stensaker B. [2019], From organised anarchy to de-coupled bureaucracy: The transformation of university organization, Higher Education Quarterly, 73: 456–468.
 
45.
Macfarlane B. [2005], The Disengaged Academic: the Retreat from Citizenship, Higher Education Quarterly, 59 (4): 296–312.
 
46.
Marginson S. [2002], Nation-building universities in a global environment: The case of Australia, Higher Education, 43: 409–428.
 
47.
Marini G., Reale E. [2016], How does collegiality survive managerially led universities? Evidence from a European Survey, European Journal of Higher Education, 6: 111–127.
 
48.
Middlehurst R. [1999], New realities for leadership and governance in higher education?, Tertiary Education and Management, 5: 307–329.
 
49.
Middlehurst R. [2013], Changing Internal Governance: Are Leadership Roles and Management Structures in United Kingdom Universities Fit for the Future?, Higher Education Quarterly, 67 (3): 275–294.
 
50.
Morphew C. C., Huisman J. [2002], Using Institutional Theory to Reframe Research on Academic Drift, Higher Education in Europe, 27 (4): 492–506.
 
51.
Musselin C. [2006], Are universities specific organisations?, in: Krücken G., Kosmützky A., Torka M. (eds.), Towards a Multiversity? Universities between Global Trends and National Traditions: 63–84, Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld.
 
52.
Neave G. [2003], On the Return from Babylon: A long voyage around history, ideology and systems change, in: File J., Goedegebuure L. (eds.), Real-Time Systems. Reflections on Higher Education in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia: 15–40, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, Enschede.
 
53.
Newton J. [2002], Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership: Case Study of Two Academic Departments, Higher Education, 44 (2): 185–212.
 
54.
Nybom T. [2003], The Humboldt Legacy: Reflections on the Past, Present, and Future of the European University, Higher Education Policy, 16, 141–159.
 
55.
Olsen J. P. [2007], The institutional dynamics of the European University, in: Maassen P., Olsen J. P. (eds.), University dynamics and European integration: 25–55, Springer, Dordrecht.
 
56.
Popper K. [2002], The Poverty of Historicism, Routledge Classics, London–New York.
 
57.
Rowland S. [2008], Collegiality and Intellectual Love, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29 (3): 353–360.
 
58.
Sahlin K., Eriksson-Zetterquist U. [2016], Collegiality in modern universities – the composition of governance ideals and practices, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2–3: 1–10.
 
59.
Scott P. [1995], The Meanings of Mass Higher Education, SRHE/Open University Press, Buckingham.
 
60.
Shams F. [2019], Managing academic identity tensions in a Canadian public university: The role of identity work in coping with managerialism, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41 (6): 619–632.
 
61.
Shattock M. [2002], Re-balancing modern concepts of university governance, Higher Education Quarterly, 56 (3): 235–244.
 
62.
Steck H. [2003], Corporatisation of the university: seeking conceptual clarity, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585: 66–83.
 
63.
Stensaker B., Jungblut J., Mihut G. [2021], Strategic advisory boards – the emergence of shadow governance in universities?, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1–17, https://doi: 10.1080/13603124.2021.1913237.
 
64.
Sztompka P. [2015], Uniwersytet współczesny: zderzenie dwóch kultur, in: Sztompka P., Matuszek K. (eds.), Idea uniwersytetu. Reaktywacja, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagielońskiego, Kraków.
 
65.
Tapper T., Palfreyman D. [2010], The collegial tradition in the age of mass higher education, Springer, Dordrecht.
 
66.
Taylor M. [2013], Shared Governance in the Modern University, Higher Education Quarterly, 67 (1): 80–94.
 
67.
Teichler U., Arimoto A., Cummings W. K. [2013], The Changing Academic Profession: Major Findings of a Comparative Survey, Springer, Dordrecht–Heidelberg–New York–London.
 
68.
Tight M. [2002], What Does It Mean to Be a Professor?, Higher Education Review, 34: 15–31.
 
69.
Trow M. [1994], Managerialism and the Academic Profession: The Case of England, Higher Education Policy, 7 (2): 11–18.
 
70.
Urbanek P. [2020], Ewolucja logiki instytucjonalnej w reformowanym systemie szkolnictwa wyższego w Polsce, Gospodarka Narodowa, 2 (302): 95–122.
 
71.
Uslu B., Welch A. [2018], The influence of universities’ organisational features on professorial intellectual leadership, Studies in Higher Education, 43 (3): 571–585.
 
72.
Veiga A., Magalhães A., Amaral A. [2015], From Collegial Governance to Boardism: Reconfiguring Governance in Higher Education, in: Huisman J., Boer H. de, Dill D., Souto-Otero M. (eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance: 398–416, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
 
73.
Wang T. [2015], Contrived collegiality versus genuine collegiality: Demystifying professional learning communities in Chinese schools, Compare: A Journal of Comparative & International Education, 45 (6): 908–930.
 
74.
Weber L. [2006], European university governance in urgent need of change, in: Kohler J., Huber J. (eds.), Higher education governance between democratic culture, academic aspirations and market forces: 63–76, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.
 
75.
Williams K. [1989], The case for democratic management in schools, Irish Educational Studies, 8 (2): 73–86.
 
eISSN:2300-5238