The University as an Organisation

Given their multifaceted, complex nature, and their variety of formats, universities are not easy environments to define or evaluate. Various authors (Hassard and Parker, 1993; Hatch, 1997; Morgan, 1997) have used the multiple perspective approach to assist them in analysing similar organisations, but this approach poses problems of limitation. If trying to use a single perspective as a key to understanding them, other theorists (Pfeffer, 1997; Mintzberg, 1983) have developed frameworks in their work which used the descriptions of organisations as political systems.

A conglomerate of sub-units with idiosyncratic responses to issues, the management structure of the traditional university model has been interpreted, for example by Mintzberg & Quinn (1988) through what they term the “Professional Bureaucracy Model”. The model fits organisations who choose employees within the ranks to lead certain groups of employees on a rotational basis, but who, after managing an allocated team for some time, will then return to the rank and file. Within universities the model fits with academic members of staff who take it in turn to be Head of School, to return after a period of time to the role of “foot soldiers”. However there are disadvantages with this managerial structure, for confidence in the management by “one of their own kind” is balanced with lack of managerial expertise at the top leading to a susceptibility to bias and a lack of authority recognition by peers.

A theoretical framework was required to guide and offer a lens through which to direct the thesis development. The “Symbolic-Interpretive” school of thought was ultimately adopted but this decision was arrived at by first considering three other major categories which have emerged in the history of organisational analysis: Classical, Modernist, Postmodern.

2.2.1 Classical/Modernist/Postmodern Analysis

Exploration of the Classical school, thriving in the factory setting, saw the application of the sociological work of Durkheim (1949), Weber (1947) and Marx (1954) to examine the contribution of organisations to the economy and society through the influence of industrialisation on the role and experiences of workers. The functions of management (Fayol, 1949) developed from this school of thought which focused on mechanical rules, procedures, an obedient workforce and “scientific” analysis of challenges (Taylor, 1911). The logical consequence of alienated, unmotivated workers with low morale and lack of liberal thinking (Braverman, 1974; Morgan, 1997) jars with the University setting and academic minds seeking alternative ideas. The evolution of analysis into the Human Relations school developed from the recognition of the organisation as a complex social system (Maslow, 1943; Mayo, 1949; McGregor, 1960; Bennis et al, 1970). Central studies in Human Relations included the study of the effect of human contact and the influence of special attention on the outcome of the data (for example the Hawthorne experiments [Mayo, 1949]). This was to become an important consideration for me as someone undertaking research as a student while still maintaining a fairly high staff profile in the institution.

Moving away from the rigidity of the Classical school, the literature from the Modernist theorists acknowledged the multi-faceted and reactive face of organisations and the fluid nature of change within them. Contingency theorists (e.g. Fiedler, 1967; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1969) argued there is no “one best style” of management for all organisations but that individual identity (based on technology, size, history, norms and environment) dictates appropriate change mechanisms. Evolutions of the Modernist school included the “Culture-Excellence” approach (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Peters and Austin, 1985; Handy, 1986; Kanter, 1990) and the Group Dynamics school of thought (Hendrick, 1987; Uhlfelder, 1995) but the Open Systems School (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Woodward, 1965; Katz and Kahn, 1978) is perhaps the most relevant within the university setting. Crucially emphasising the inter-dependence of sub-systems within the organisation it stressed

the consequent multiplied reactions to actions occurring and the combined effect greater than a simple sum of its individual parts. The Open Systems has some relevance to the university setting, open to the external environment (ecological, social, technological, governmental) and internally with the pull of faculties, schools, departments each with their individual clients but with interdependent effects. This approach was useful as a background influence on the prioritisation of connections and interacting relationships within the institution.

The third category, Postmodernism, was perhaps the most difficult for me to apply. To define this as one perspective is inappropriate for (while at the risk of being accused of negativity) it is perhaps more efficient to say what postmodernism isnot rather than what it is. A collective expressing a diversity of ideas and theories, Postmodernism deconstructs what is regarded as the “illusions” of reality, redefining social constructions through individual personal reflection (Foucault, 1980; Peron & Peron, 2003; Boje, Gephart & Thatchenkery, 1996). While questioning all assumptions and denying any absolute notion of “truth”, within the setting of this study postmodernism could be used to describe the social changes which are held to be challenging the traditional educational format within HE. Personally I have found Postmodernist analysis has many attractions by reflecting the complexity and dynamism of society. However, it does also invoke a certain anxiety within me. The simplicity of the modernist theories seem unsatisfying, but the postmodernists, in a reaction to the former, have produced seemingly limitless combinations of possible dynamics questioning everything which creates an exhaustion which can paralyse rather than energise the debate.

Thus, by elimination, I arrived at the consideration of the Symbolic-Interpretive perspective of organisations.

2.2.2 Symbolic Interpretive Perspective

This sociological perspective encompasses several theories including Weick’s Enactment Theory (Weick, 1995) and The Social Construction of Reality Theory

(Berger and Luckmann, 1967). The perspective became the one that I viewed as most relevant for this study, (the process of coming to this decision will be discussed more in Chapter 8 examining my methodology). The Symbolic Interpretive perspective broadly recognises that society is constructed through negotiations between people with shared experiences and histories. The actions are of less importance than the interpretation by the people encountering such actions. In the context of relevance to a study set within the university environment, and in view of my motivation described in Chapter 1, it may be understandable that I wanted to understand how people made sense of their lives. I wanted to know how they perceived the power relations, and formed bonds, with others and delineated their ideas of what is legitimate and what not. Social Constructionists, acknowledging unwritten, but received and accepted, rules and interpretations of language used within society, place significance on identified and defined subjects. Brown et al, (2005) used narrative practices to analyse organisational identity, particularly in terms of linguistic constructs. I was attracted to the cognitive entity which I understood from Humphreys & Brown, (2002a) describing the organisation as pluralistic “accomplishment”, with simultaneous and sequential understandings of discourses, often multi-layered and diverse, and for me an extension of Berger & Luckmann (1966) who talked about the organisation developing out of language interaction in processes of networking, negotiation and exchange. The perspective proposes that every person within a situation, manager, employee, student, plays the role as an actor, creating their own realities running parallel to, and crossing over, each other in their overall mental construction of the situation (Beech and Cairns, 2001). For me, it reminded of an ontological honesty, accepting that I would be inside the research zone but being aware of the danger of bias and using self- awareness as a shield against influence. It explored the life within an organisation, rather than concentrating on the structure. In all senses, this Social Constructionist perspective began to feel a comfortable framework.

Crucial to the study of the university as an organisation was a focus of organisational culture, in my view the critical heart of any organisation. The culture is identified as the source of the organisation’s belief system, the priorities of the people within, the values which guide the way tasks are undertaken and the processes adopted (Schein, 1985). However, in practical terms, culture can be a complex concept to quantify or even, initially, to recognise and theorists have struggled with its identification for years.