GLOBALIZACIÓN Y CRISIS FINANCIERAS

Not surprisingly, against this backdrop of change the place of collegiality is questionable in a corporatised HE environment. Whilst collegiality has been described as making organisational decisions through consultation with a broad range of participants, managerialism features organisational decisions made by a narrower management group (Milliken, 2001). It represents the centralisation of power rather than the decentralisation of power seen in a collegial environment. Collegiality can be said to have its basis in pluralism, or the acceptance of multiple viewpoints affecting decisions (Fox, 1974), while managerialism may be likened to a more unitary approach, in which the expectations are that management decisions will be followed by organisational members (McInnis, 1998; Alexiadou, 2001). This section considers collegiality in more detail first before moving to explore the contention that managerialism has increased as the dominant approach to university management.

Collegiality has been described as the process where ‘an administrative act is only legitimate where it has been produced by the co-operation of a plurality of people according to the principle of unanimity or of majority’ (Weber, 1978:278). Whilst this can be viewed as an ideal situation, more critically, collegiality had its limits in practice and was essentially restricted to the privilege of senior academics,

predominantly male and exclusive of junior academics, women and general staff (Cassidy, 1998; Bessant, 2002).

The examination of collegial decision making in the HE context supports the argument that the degree of participation in organisational decision making is crucial to employee perceptions of a collegial decision making environment. It supports Waters’ (1989) assessment of collegiality in his analysis of the writings of Max Weber. His observation was that an ‘administrative act’ or decision made within an organisation can only be regarded as legitimate when it has been endorsed by a plurality of people or a majority of organisational participants (1989:952). This concept supports the notion that a decision would be seen to be collegial where it had been considered by all those affected by the outcome.

This assessment of collegiality was explored by Waters in his: ‘universally recognised characteristics of collegial authority’ (1989:955). These characteristics comprised: expertise, equality and consensus. Based on these characteristics, Waters (1989:956- 958) elucidated the nature of collegial organisations as comprising:

1. An emphasis on ‘theoretical knowledge’ or the operation of the organisation primarily in terms of the use and application of theoretical knowledge

2. The existence of a ‘professional career’ whereby employees are conceived of as professionals

3. The operation of ‘formal egalitarianism’ – where there is the presence of performance oriented systems

4. The evidence of ‘formal autonomy’ or the presence of collegial organisations are self-controlling and self-policing organisational practices

5. The use of processes for the ‘scrutiny of product’ in which organisations have a maximum stress on peer evaluation and informal control

6. The use of ‘collective decision making’ and the constitution of collective forums in which decisions are made.

Managerialism has been described as a concentration on the interests of management which has resulted in a closer examination of the processes and responsibilities of management. The importation of HRM policies, strategies and its underlying unitarist

ideology into the HE sector has led to a concept of managerialism which reflects a commitment to the values of individualism, efficiency and entrepreneurship. Clarke and Newman (1993) suggested that managerialism refers to the aim of making management the driving force of a competitively successful society by providing leadership through the transformation of culture. The authors stated that managerialism breaks the traditional conception of managers as organisational functionaries or bureaucrats trapped by an organisational culture which values rule- following above innovation. The new management role was described as: ‘visions, missions, leadership by example, intensive communication processes and thorough attention to the realm of symbols are the mechanisms for creating the cultural conditions which mobilize and harness enterprising energy’ (1993, 430).

The notion of managerialism arises from the more corporatist model of organisational management which focuses the organisation squarely on market competitiveness. In a strict definition the term managerialism can be seen as a greater attempt by management to control the actions and behaviours of a group of professionals who previously may have had greater autonomy over their work practices (Gleeson and Shain, 1999). This has necessitated taking a managerialist approach according to Davis (2004):

the shift in management cultures within universities and the weakening of the traditional community of scholars approach to internal governance have intensified as universities have been forced to adopt commercial values. Managerialism is less ideology than a predictable response to changed circumstances (2004:5).

The rise of managerialism in higher education has been observed elsewhere. Mok (1999) examined the concept of managerialism within the HE sector in her article on the ‘McDonaldisation of Higher Education in Hong Kong’. She described the rise of managerialism as a by-product of the changes of the last 20 years: ‘On the management front, collegiality is becoming less important, whilst the terms of the new discourse are mission statements, system outputs, appraisal, audit, decision making and control, strategic plans, cost centres, partnerships and public relations (1999:118)’. Similarly, Pollitt (1993) described managerialism in the UK HE sector as

an emergence of a defence of the right of managers to manage in the context of increased demands for a more market oriented approach to the management of the HE sector.

The findings of increased managerialism have been confirmed in Australia. In his study of Deans and Heads in the HE sector Harman (2002:53) identified that: ‘Australian higher education institutions have moved from largely collegial to much more corporate styles of university management’. In the context of workplace change, and the manner in which change is managed within the sector, Harman (2002) found evidence of the emergence of a ‘divide’ between academic leaders and their staff: ‘social relations in faculties and departments seem likely to change, with increased gulfs developing between deans and heads on the one hand’ (2002:69).

The rise of managerialism in the tertiary education sector was a theme also examined by Alexiadou (2001:415), who noted that: ‘managers have had to develop new organisational structures, in order to cope with the pressures of change, and the paradox of combining freedom of responsibility of managing their budgets within tighter than ever central and market controls’. This assessment of managerialism identifies it as a response to the changed nature of the section and the ongoing corporatisation that has been discussed above.

The move away from a collegial method of operation is identified as a response of Vice-Chancellor’s and university executives by O’Meara and Petzall (2007). They advocate that whilst it can be:

argued that the collegium model is non-existent (or at least severely eroded) in contemporary Australian universities, the characteristics of leaders in this system may be inferred. Vice-Chancellors in this model would gain their ‘authority’ through their ability to orchestrate consultation (2007:76).

The extent to which consultation has emerged as the panacea for collegial decision making in the Australian HE sector, in the context of workplace change, will be

further canvassed in Chapter 4 in the consideration of perceptions of fairness and organisational justice.

It is a contention of this thesis that the increasing managerialism in the university sector brought about through the cumulative changes imposed by governments since the 1980s has influenced the way change is managed at an institutional level. It is likely that change is driven by managers through centralised and powerful management structures and that without a collegial framework to discuss and participate in the decisions of that change, consultation with employees is the main form of participation. The extent to which this more managerial culture has adversely (or otherwise) impacted on decision-making processes for change management, employee participation and organisational justice will be examined in more detail in Chapters 6, 7 and 8. That managerialism at has been associated with a decline in participative decision-making is explored in detail in Chapter 3.