Chapter 3

Literature Review
This section presents a review of related academic literature, which
contributes to the theoretical framework for the study. As shown in the model below
several different theoretical aspects including (1) Autonomy, (2) Institutional theory,
and (3) Organisational Effectiveness will be considered during this study. These
themes are interrelated and contribute collectively to the development of an
understanding of the issues of concern in this study.
3.1 Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework below is shaped up from the basis of the
background of Thai higher education and potentially relevant literatures that may
contribute to the research topic, which focuses on the administration and
management of universities as organisations, with explicit focus on the regulatory
change towards a more autonomous status for the universities and how this change
affects organisational capabilities, which consequently leading to organisational
effectiveness. (Change the diagram later)

Educational reform, especially becoming autonomous is an important issue in

Thailand. Several Thai researchers have identified the benefits and drawbacks of
how becoming more autonomous may affect students and a universitys
administration. However, the impacts of autonomy on the effectiveness of
universities have rarely been debated. In fact, the change of regulatory framework in
Thai Higher Education to more autonomy has emerged from more broadly based
social and economic pressures. Such pressures challenge Thai universities to adopt
new organisational forms in order to respond more effectively to the environmental
shift. Like many other countries, Thai higher education is expected to produce quality
graduates and develop new knowledge in order to enhance the national
competitiveness, resulting in a strong demand for university quality and
accountability. In addition, the new form of management is also presumed to have an
effect on the university capabilities, which in turn will affect the effectiveness of the
universities.
In considering the shift towards autonomous model, concept of
autonomy as a frame is necessarily reviewed. Also institutional theory as a
contemporary idea is useful to address the changes and developments
occurred in the Thai higher educational sector. Institutional theory is an
alternative view of organisational action and is based on sociological perspective, is
used to explain how the universities respond to the regulatory change, rather than
the traditional perspective like organisational change (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996).
Moreover, institutional theory provides a good set of mechanisms that is
useful for the study. In organisational management, it is inevitable to discuss
about administrators, as they are one of the prominent keys that manage an
organisation. Their skills, beliefs and values are dominant in the given organisation.
Gumport and Sporn (1999) stated that administrators play a significant role in
mediating their organisations with their environments. Therefore, good leaders are
supposed to arrange the fit between internal and external environment. Along with
the concept of autonomy and institutional theory, the notion of
organisational effectiveness and its predictors regarding higher education
sector is considered under the framework. The term effectiveness has
become significant in studies of higher education institutions and systems.

Effectiveness is reflected through goals accomplishment established based on the

demands of environments (Cameron & Whetten, 1996).
All of the aspects introduced above will be reviewed and discussed in
the following section.

3.2 Literature Review

This section presents a review of related academic literature, which

contributes to the theoretical framework for the study. As shown in the model above
several different theoretical aspects including (1) Autonomy, (2) Institutional theory,
and (3) Organisational Effectiveness will be considered during this study. These
themes are interrelated and contribute collectively to the development of
an understanding of the issues of concern in this study.
3.2.1 Autonomy
3.2.1.1 Definitions and Conceptualization
There have been different definitions of autonomy given by a number of
researchers, which are given below.
Autonomy is defined by Ballou (1998) the capacity of an agent to determine
its own actions through independent choice within a system of principles and laws to
which the agent is dedicated (p. 105).
Broke (2003) defines autonomy as the degree to which one may make
decisions significantly without the consent of others.
However, the perception and views on autonomy change over time, and might
differ from one context to another. Therefore, it is useful to consider different
definitions of autonomy in order to have a better understanding of the term.
Autonomy can be used for both the organisation and the state. Its meaning is
initially understood via political theory. The word autonomy originated from the
Greek word autonomia, which means a state that is free to determine the norms

by which it wants to live (Ostwald, 1982). Previously, autonomy has been

considered synonymous with the right of self-determinism, for states or individuals.
This definition of self-determinism can be seen to have a wide impact over the
functioning of a state, or an organisation. Even partial autonomy could have a big
impact, in comparison to a state with no autonomy. At the level of an individual, living
by ones own law can be referred to as autonomia. This too has wider political
implications, as this self-governing at individual level morphs into a wider system of
self-governance with a set of principles, which include competence, decision-making,
critical reflection, freedom and self-control (Ballou, 1998).
The concept of autonomy, as considered from different perspectives
mentioned above, is dynamic in nature; it is a consequence of wider social and
political changes taking place in a society. Various studies have considered the
enduring complexity of the concept of autonomy over a period of time (The
autonomy of autonomy, 2007; Ballou,1998; Ostwald, 1982). Thus, it is imperative to
look at individual components of autonomy, to be able to understand the
fundamental issues associated with the concept.
Self-governance within a system of principles
Self-governance is the central tenet of autonomy. On an individual level,
philosophers have on numerous occasions attempted to link the idea of autonomous
behaviour to the morality of the subject. Thus, basically saying that for a subject to
be autonomous, it was necessary to be in accord with universally valid moral
principles and laws, via his or her own actions. Though, others have considered selfgovernance as a right and responsibility to create a conducive environment for
decision making, which is helpful in establishing control over self, and working
conditions (Aydelotte, 1983; Dayani, 1990; Susman, 1976).
Ability, Capacity and Competence
According to Haworth, competence is the foundation of autonomy. A person
strives to be able to produce intended effects and to become able to expand his
repertoire of skills that underlies that ability. In the view of contemporary philosopher
Young (1985), who argued that the autonomous persons capacities, beliefs and
values will be identifiable as integral to him and be the source from which his actions

spring. Thus, it can be stated that competency and autonomy are linked together,
which means that an individual, or an organisation cannot act autonomously without
the competence to act autonomously. Therefore, the presence of competence is
directly linked to accomplishing autonomy.
Decision Making
Decision-making is also a significant theme in the concept of autonomy. Two
components arise that make decision-making a component of autonomy. One is that
agents have the freedom to choose how best to achieve an end or satisfy a
preference. Two is that agents have the freedom to act on their choices. Individual
ability to become autonomous depends on his/her capability or capacity to make
choice among alternatives. Autonomy was defined by Batey and Lewis (1982), as
the freedom to make discretionary and binding decisions consistent with ones scope
of practice and freedom to act on those decisions. According to Leddy and Pepper
(1985), the autonomous person is capable of making rational and unconstrained
decision and acting on those decisions. However, the presumption here is that the
individual is in possession of valid information (Argyris, 1997). This means that the
individual has accurate and full information, based upon which, a decision can be
made. However, increasingly that is not the case as individuals do not have accurate
and full information, which means that the choice or decision cannot be
unconstrained. Therefore, in such cases, the individual making the decision is
constrained by what he does not know. An individual can be considered rational
when he is capable of choosing the best means to some end, depending on the
information available to make the choice.
Critical Reflection
A theme related to decision making is critical reflection which was described
by Haworth (1986) as being sensitive to thought and to being guided by it acting on
reason, reflecting on impulses and outside influence. One adopts standards, values,
and principles after having critically reflected on them. Kant (as cited in Haworth,
1986) believed that actions based on desire lead to heteronomy. Kants critics
disagree by asserting that if one critically reflects on ones desires, one avoids
heteronomy by assuring that ones choices are ones own. Therefore, the concept of

autonomy involves the idea of authoring ones own world through reflection and
decision-making and within a system of endorsed beliefs and principles.
Freedom
Autonomy, in essence, means seeking independence and acting with freedom
from authority. These are two essential cornerstones for fermenting an autonomous
organisation.

Haworth

(1986)

emphasized

that

positive

connotation

of

independence is one actually ruling oneself, and that self-rule does not automatically
follow from freedom and independence, but only guarantees the possibility.
Self-Control
Self-control is a common theme in the discussions about autonomy. Haworth
(1986) mentioned that autonomous persons demonstrate this capacity through full
rationality and unrestricted critical competence, expressed in a continuously
expanding creative life that is fully ones own. This idea brings an existing awareness
of liability for self and ability to control self.
3.2.1.2 Autonomy and Organisation
It is becoming increasingly clear that organisations throughout the world are
striving to cope with the need for changes from the traditional management modes to
the new managerialism. This new managerialism involves the application of privatesector techniques to public sector management in order to increase productivity.
With the new managerialism, management must have the freedom to plan,
implement and measure its resources when it feels appropriate (Bottery 2000).
Especially, in large or public organisations, where bureaucratic systems still
dominates, there is a shift towards flexibility in management and administration.
Centralization is a structural feature of classical bureaucracy. The locus of
decision-making is based on the top level of organisations and it is debatable as to
whether it works efficiently, especially in relation to organisations such as
universities, which have complex social and economic goals. It is clear that
bureaucracy is efficient for the administration of large-scale organisations; however,
it may have a negative effect on routine tasks. Bureaucracy keeps the chain of
command impersonal and stops favoritism, clear missions and policies for the

organisations to follow will be defined clearly, and it has focused on the dominance
of regulations. Such regulations cause rigidity, lack of responsiveness to client even
discouragement of innovation, while not necessarily doing away with favoritism and
often proving unable to develop effective policies. Even though bureaucratic
structures and processes work effectively, in a broader consensus the ineffectuality
of bureaucratic systems is well documented. Therefore, it is argued that the nature of
bureaucracy must be replaced by flexibility and involvement (Berka, 2000; Salaman
& Asch, 2003). The term flexible and involvement have been characterized by
concepts of autonomy, which will be discussed as follows;
Autonomy can be observed at various levels of analysis; the autonomy of an
individual in the organisation or the autonomy of organisations. At the individual
level, autonomy can be referred to as the right of an organisational member to make
a decision relevant to their job without consent of other people. While, autonomy at
the organisational level has been defined by (Datta, Grant, & Rajagopalan, 1991) as
day-to-day freedom to manage. (Harris & Holden, 2001) showed the interrelationship

between

autonomy

and

control,

framing

them

as

opposing

organisational forces. The relationship between autonomy and organisation has

been studied at different levels, highlighting the impact of low or high autonomy on
the functioning of departments in an organisation, while also taking into account the
impact autonomy has on the centralization of decision-making within an organisation
(Brock, 2003). Hackman and Oldham (1976) showed that autonomy along with other
factors promotes positive motivation, performance, satisfaction, absenteeism, and
turnover outcomes. Therefore, autonomy not only affects the jobs directly, it also
relates to important areas, which have a direct impact on organisational
effectiveness.
3.2.1.3 Autonomy and Universities
Universities throughout the world have been changed profoundly, due to
globalisation and the rapid changes in the word. New demands of higher education
have increased and this has also lead to changes in their objectives. Our society and
economy as such, are increasingly becoming knowledge-based. The responsibility of
universities towards the nation is not only teaching students but also to provide lifelong learning, which helps create a developed society and also to support producing

research as centers of research. Demands for a variety of educational services such

as, distance-learning courses, multidisciplinary studies, are growing rapidly.
Therefore, in order to meet a new societys overall needs, the organisational
structures of educational institutes, have to be changed from a rigid bureaucracy
toward more flexible structures. Consequently, universities are increasingly harder to
manage, with fragmentation of disciplines, diversion of original goals and objectives
with which they had started. A flexible structure, on the other hand, could give
educational organisations an opportunity to adapt to changing demands. Moreover, it
would result in creation of more nimble organisations, which are adaptive towards
the changes. The present form of organisation, with interferences from bureaucratic
arm of government hampers the universitys ability to adapt to the changing needs of
a society (Mora, 2001).
Universities around the world have moved towards a universal system of
higher education over the last thirty years, consequently they are looking at making
changes to their systems of governance and management (Mora, 2006). When
university governance and management become a new objective, the concept of
university autonomy is inevitable to be included. There are a number of views on the
autonomy of universities and it has been argued to be an essential prerequisite for
education (Berka, 2000, p. 5).
(Glenn, 2000) stated that to be an autonomous educational institution implies
that it is less subject to political and bureaucratic interference, and more responsive
to those it serves. In Thailand the political influence is confined to the affluent few,
and the democractisation is still at its nascent stages. Therefore, an autonomous
education institution means that those without political influence have a better
chance of becoming more influential stakeholders in the reformed organisation, as it
attempts to become autonomous, and consequentially free from political agendas of
the ruling class.
Mora (2010) defined the meaning of university autonomy as the universitys
ability to organise its own activities without the state consents.
Lo (2010) defines the concept of institutional autonomy as the selfgovernance of education institutions without political or bureaucratic interference
hampering the attainment of the most important goals of education.

As indicated by these views the perception of autonomy in universities may

vary from context to context and may vary over time. Thus, university autonomy
might differ from country to country. Consequently, the definition of university
autonomy should be made clear for particular context in order to understand the
influence of context on university autonomy.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of autonomy on the
effectiveness of universities in Thailand. Thus, the meaning of university autonomy
should be defined within the Thai context.

In the Thai context, autonomy is

considered as a significant step to strengthen and develop public higher education

institution, so autonomy in Thailand is expected to be more accountable to the
public, more adaptive to educational and social needs and market demand, and
more proactive and dynamic in prioritising their goals, outputs and outcomes
(Sinthunava, 2007).
However, it is rare for educational institutions to be completely autonomous,
and free of any political influence. The primary reason being that most universities,
even the so-called autonomous ones, receive public funding in one-way or another.
A number of arguments could be made in favour of university autonomy, but at the
same time there are quite a few valid reasons for the State to have some form of
control over higher education. These include, the States duty towards research and
development, for the sake of wider social good. Also, it is important that
governmental resources are utilised to increase social mobility, through public
service in form of education and employment. Moreover, there needs to be
accountability regarding government expenditure, so that the government protects
the interests of the taxpayers and students (Mora, 2001).
Therefore, an argument could be made that the supervisory power of the state
has some positive consequences for the higher education, as in this way larger
public good is ensured. At the same time, the role of state is considered by some to
be pertinent for the development of such an important service, and thus, they
advocate reliance on indirect methods compatible with autonomy ("The anatomy of
autonomy," 2007). Following from this, different governments have used different
approaches to deal with this particular scenario, that of indirect control with
semblance of autonomy. As an example, in some countries governments play a

decisive role in deciding the programmes at offer, whereas in more autonomous

institutions this is left to the organisation as such. Another frequently used method is
that of the quality assurance criteria, where the institutions are given funding if they
meet the set criterion.
Considering all the views discussed above, the idea of institutional autonomy
is far more complicated than it seems on the first occasion. The factors, which give
rise to this rising complexity, include the increasing pressure for accountability and
different demands from a variety of stakeholders. Due to these demands, the higher
education institutions are forced to take decisions in order to respond to those
demands, which consequently affect their core institutional autonomy.
The actual literature on autonomy has been sparse, and most of the fascination with
the theme occurred, following the growth decades of the 1960s when the amount of
institutions proliferated along with states did start to centralize coordination along with
governance regarding public postsecondary training. During this era studies of varieties of
coordinating point out structures were common (Berdahl, 1971; Glenny, 1959; Millett, 1984).
States usually are characterized because having constitutional or perhaps statutory
autonomy for degree, but autonomy from state is dependent upon state heritage, context, and
kind of board together with legal position. An early on study contrasted their bond between
point out and degree in four states with constitutional autonomy along with four claims with
statutory position, and concluded that, "The findings of the present research indicate several
occasions, even so, when any tax-supported establishment of degree, whatever its legal
position, can productively resist concerted legislative pressures, particularly in matters
requiring point out funds. inches (Glenny & Dalglish, 1973, s. 147). The learning notes that
will limitations on autonomy come through from political pressure, the particular
appropriations practice, judicial interpretations regarding constitutional autonomy, and
constitutional powers fond of other entities such as legislature or perhaps governor.
Through the years a several studies include operational autonomy. Research according
to national info has presented constructs along with operational explanations of institutional
autonomy. Examining point out regulation along with administrative flexibility in public
places universities, Volkwein along with Malik (1997) confirmed two measurements of
institutional autonomy, admin and academic, and elements and variables within just about
every dimension. Management, or financial/personnel mobility is identified by four factors
(revenue mobility; expenditure details flexibility; spending budget detail mobility; tuition

along with fee flexibility) along with related variables within just about every factor.
Educational flexibility is actually defined by means of six elements (program mobility;
standards; liability requirements; disciplinary mobility; department mobility; degree
requirements) along with related variables. The perform of Volkwein along with Malik comes
with a tool pertaining to operationalizing along with measuring the degree of institutional
autonomy. The learning, however, suggests that there is little marriage between degrees of
regulation as well as a state's sociable, political along with economic attributes, and no
significant marriage between autonomy along with faculty or perhaps undergraduate quality
(Volkwein & Malik, 1997). Any related study surveyed campus managers to determine their
levels ofjob full satisfaction, and observed little marriage between full satisfactions and point
out and campus regulating conditions (Volkwein, Malik, & Napierski-Prancl, 1998). This
finding, counter in order to expectations according to organizational theory, leads us to
believe that further study may be needed in order to explore the character of mobility as
experienced by those that work inside campuses. The carrying on concern indicated by
groups just like the Association regarding Governing Forums (200 I) with regards to threats
in order to autonomy is actually additional cause of searching past the operational definitions
regarding autonomy to find insight by practitioners with the campus along with state levels.
In hard work to figure out how autonomy is actually controlled, some research
provides investigated the particular role regarding state rules and governance buildings. Both
Fisher (1988) along with Sabloff (1997) analyzed state legislatures and also the restriction
regarding autonomy in public universities. Fisher observed that, regardless of perceptions
regarding increasing rules by those in the academy, there is no improve in hard to stick to
legislation among 1900 along with 1979. How many restrictive degree laws elevated, but the
entire number regarding legislation off types also increased through the period, without the
need of disproportionate improve in hard to stick to legislation aimed towards postsecondary
training (Fisher, 1988). Sabloff, even so, concluded that will legislatures may very well
continue moving past laws restricting degree autonomy due to increasing professionalization
regarding state legislators, an expanding regulatory weather, and the importance for congress
to react to constituent calls for liability (Sabloff, 1997). Neither Fisher not Sabloff
particularly discusses the particular potential effects of the decreasing degrees of public
resources upon point out regulatory behavior. Given any climate regarding diminishing point
out revenues along with multiple exterior claimants for degree accountability, legislators'
perceptions of the responsibilities toward public degree would always be of vital fascination
with understanding policy direction.

Notwithstanding a adjusting environment, states form public degree governance

buildings, and restructuring initiatives in the past decade include prompted numerous studies.
Hearn along with Griswold (1994) observed that robust centralized governing structures
usually are positively correlated with degree policy advancement in academic areas, but not
in the community of capital education. Others are finding that government and specific
systems were most productive at identifying priorities along with guiding perform processes,
although specific systems are liable to external political interference unless of course
protected by means of constitutional autonomy (F. L. Bowen et aI., 1997).
3.1.1 Accountability
This literature upon liability have been abundant, and also after that become examined here
will be the literature that is almost all strongly related a new discussion of autonomy. Many
studies describe a variety of constituents with an interest inside higher education focal points
and also results. Open public terrain allow educational institutions, by way of example, ought
to respond to wants of central stakeholders and also nearby constituents, but will also be
dependable towards the federal legislation with which these were set up and also funded.
These days as well as government, higher education features stuck romantic relationships
using individual company and also foundations that include grants or loans and also
endowments and search from educational institutions to be a method to obtain investigation
and also advancement. In the course of instances of financial difficulties, everyone university
can be encouraged to look for additional funding, and also these types of services of support
potentially have an effect on the actual direction and also durability of distinct software
programs from the academy (Harcleroad, 1999). Educational program focal points,
customarily a new prerogative from the autonomous academy, additionally may be affected
by policy and also governmental policies additional towards the academy (McGuinness,
1999; Eileen, 1998).
Within the 1990s, the bigger knowledge literature illustrates the actual mind-boggling
fascination with liability to convey government, stated through performance funding, tested
through performance signals, and also inspired through structure and also governance (Trudy
W. Banta & Borden, 1994; Bottrill & Borden, 1994; Burke, 1998; Freeman, 1995; Gillmore
& Hoffman, 1997; Marcus, 1997; Ruppert, 1995; Serban, 1998b; Stein & Fajen, 1995). In
additionally, taken on school production and also incentives, program examination, scholar
results inside the energy to help gauge the prices and also results of open higher education
(Milem et aI., 2000; Presley & Engelbride, 1998). Within this period, campuses documented
towards the state in relation to issues which customarily have been beneath campus oversight.

3.1.2 Autonomy and Universities

Universities around the world have already been changed in a big way, due to help
globalisation plus the rapid changes from the word. New needs of higher education have
increased this also has also lead to changes within their objectives. Our society and economy
therefore, are becoming increasingly knowledge-based. The accountability of universities to
nation isn't just teaching students but to provide life-long mastering, which helps develop a
developed society and to support generating research because centers of research. Demands
for various educational services for instance, distance-learning classes, multidisciplinary
reports, are increasing rapidly. As a result, in order to meet up with a brand-new societys
entire needs, this organizational buildings of informative institutes, have to be changed
coming from a rigid paperwork toward much more flexible buildings. Consequently,
universities are generally increasingly harder to deal with, with fragmentation of disciplines,
diversion of original ambitions and objectives with which they had started off. A variable
structure, alternatively, could give educational organisations an opportunity to adapt to help
changing needs. Moreover, it'd result inside creation of more nimble firms, which are
generally adaptive to changes. Today's form of organisation, with interferences through
bureaucratic provide of federal hampers this universitys power to adapt for the changing
needs of an society (Mora, 2001).
Universities world wide have relocated towards the universal technique of higher education
during the last thirty many years, consequently they are considering making changes thus to
their systems of governance and management (Mora, 2006). When college governance and
management become a new objective, the thought of university autonomy is inevitable being
included. There are many of views for the autonomy of universities there are been argued
being an necessary prerequisite with regard to education (Berka, 2000, r. 5).
(Glenn, 2000) reported that being an autonomous informative institution implies that it's less
governed by political and bureaucratic disturbance, and more responsive to those that serves.
In Thailand this political affect is confined for the affluent several, and this democractisation
continues to be at its nascent levels. Therefore, an autonomous education and learning
institution implies that those with out political influence possess a better possibility of
becoming much more influential stakeholders from the reformed operation, as that attempts
to be autonomous, and consequentially free from political agendas from the ruling class.
Mora (2010) defined this is of college autonomy since the universitys power to organise its
activities with no state consents.

Lo (2010) defines the very idea of institutional autonomy since the self-governance of
education establishments without politics or bureaucratic disturbance hampering this
attainment of the extremely important ambitions of education and learning.
As mentioned by these kind of views this perception of autonomy inside universities can vary
greatly from framework to context and could vary as time passes. Thus, university autonomy
might vary from country to help country. For that reason, the classification of college
autonomy needs to be made clear for specific context as a way to understand this influence of
context upon university autonomy.
The intention of this study is always to investigate this impact of autonomy on the
effectiveness of universities inside Thailand. Therefore, the significance of college autonomy
needs to be defined from the Thai framework. In this Thai framework, autonomy is regarded
as an important step to help strengthen and develop public higher education institution, so
autonomy inside Thailand is expected to be much more accountable for the public, much
more adaptive to help educational and social wants and current market demand, and more
proactive and dynamic inside prioritising his or her goals, components and outcomes
(Sinthunava, 2007).
On the other hand, it is rare with regard to educational institutions being completely
autonomous, and clear of any politics influence. The leading reason being that a majority of
universities, perhaps the so-called autonomous kinds, receive general public funding inside
one-way or perhaps another. A number of arguments may be made to be replaced by
university autonomy, but while doing so there are quite a few valid reasons behind the State
to possess some form of control over higher education. These include, the States
responsibility towards study and progress, for this sake of wider social good. Also, it is
essential that governmental means are utilized to raise social range of motion, through
general public service in kind of education and employment. Also, there must be
accountability regarding government costs, so which the government shields the interests
from the taxpayers and students (Mora, 2001).
As a result, an argument may be made which the supervisory power from the state offers
some positive consequences for higher education and learning, as in this manner larger
general public good is ensured. At the same time, the role of state is regarded by some being
pertinent for development of this kind of important services, and so, they recommend
reliance upon indirect methods appropriate for autonomy ("The body structure of autonomy,
inches 2007). Following because of this, different governments manipulate different
approaches to deal with this specific scenario, that of oblique control using semblance of

autonomy. For example, in several countries authorities play the decisive role in deciding the
programmes at present, whereas inside more autonomous institutions this is left for the
organisation therefore. Another used often method is that from the quality confidence criteria,
where the institutions are given funding as long as they meet this set qualification.
Considering all of the views mentioned above, the thought of institutional autonomy is
considerably more complicated than it seems like on the primary occasion. The factors, which
bring about this growing complexity, include this increasing demand for accountability and
different demands from various stakeholders. As a result of these needs, the higher education
institutions are generally forced to consider decisions as a way to respond to help those needs,
which as a result affect his or her core institutional autonomy.
3.1 Institutional autonomy in HE
It really is apparently distinct that, no matter whether in formulated or developing nations, the
problem of institutional autonomy in She has been shared as the leading agenda connected
with discussions. It really is believed in which autonomy may be the crucial characteristic of
HEIs (Berdahl, 1990; Clark 1983; Kohtamaki, 2009). Lots of studies indicate that growing
institutional autonomy is a key to be able to capacitate colleges to react to the challenges in a
increasingly complicated and international environment (Eastermann & Nokkala, 2009).
Additionally, it will be believed the issue connected with academic flexibility and
institutional autonomy are generally basically important to understand the relationship
between HEIs plus the state (McDaniel, 1996).
Even so, it seems that zero studies make a comprehensive explanation or which means of
autonomy. This situation happens partly due to nature connected with autonomy to be a
multi-dimensional principle that seems in using many autonomy related concepts along with
various dimensions inside the same principle (Kohtamaki, 2009). Other than, its principle or
which means shows variations in line with the level connected with analysis staying made,
that may be autonomy on the basic device, unit degree, institutional degree and method level
(Beacher & Kogan, 1992). Furthermore, the difference in traditional background of numerous
HE systems in addition has its influence on the interpretations connected with autonomy.
According to Kohtamaki (2009: 69), Historically, you will find variations concerning whose
autonomy will be emphasized, within relations to be able to whose as well as what autonomy
will be identified, and what is undoubtedly the content material of autonomy. Therefore, it

will be common to determine different varieties of definitions provided to the phraseinstitutional autonomy.
Careful discusses these descriptions of autonomy within HE, nevertheless, show they share
popular important components. These definitions really should not be opposed to one another,
but alternatively differ inside emphasis to merely give. First of all, Askling, Bauer & Marton
(1999: 81) determine it as follows; Institutional autonomy is normally looked at as the level
of freedom the actual university has got to steer itself. Even so, this popular concept will not
necessarily make the task of defining the term easier. For Mora (2001) autonomy may be the
right in the institution to set its own objectives along with manage its very own affairs with
out interference on the state.
Autonomy within HEIs on the institutional level can also be seen since the issue connected
with academic extramarital affairs and current administration affairs. As a result, Berdahl
(1990: 123) proposed to distinguish between two sorts of autonomy: procedural along with
substantive. Substantive autonomy may be the power in the university or college in its
corporate from to find out its own goals along with programmes, - the actual what connected
with academe. Procedural autonomy may be the power in the university or college in its
corporate from to look for the means in which its targets and programmes will likely be
pursued-the precisely how of academe. In practical words, substantive autonomy would
mean the guru of institutions to find out academic along with research policy such as
standards, course load, programme choices, research regions, staff policy, and awarding
degrees or usually the academic extramarital affairs. Procedural autonomy means the guru of
institutions in essentially non-academic areas such as budgeting, personal management, as
well as non-academic staff and human being resource managing or the actual institutional
managing.
In lots of the literatures on the autonomy within HEIs, the apparent focus is on the ingredients
in the autonomy not on the simple which means attached on there. There isn't any ideal style
of autonomy, but rather a few basic principles that constitute crucial portions of autonomy
(Eastermann & Nokkala, 2009: 7). This might help to be able to approach along with analyse
the actual status connected with autonomy within HEIs. For example, for Ashby & Anderson
(1966: 296), the ingredients within institutional autonomy are generally:

The Freedom to select staff along with students and to look for the conditions under

which remain inside university;

The Freedom to find out curriculum content material and stage standards along with

The Flexibility to allot funds (within the actual amounts available) over different

groups of expenditures.
Additionally, a complete analysis in the basic measurements of institutional autonomy in a
few European countries may be made simply by Eatermann & Nokkala (2009). For that
reason, according to be able to Estermann & Nokkala, (2009: 40) the essential dimensions
connected with institutional autonomy within HEIs are generally organizational, personal,
staffing along with academic autonomy. The in depth analysis of each dimension will likely
be offered inside following sections.
3.1.1 Organizational autonomy
Organizational autonomy is the term for the framework and institutional governance,
specifically, the capability to establish framework and regulating bodies, university command
and who's going to be accountable to help whom. Put simply, it targets defining this
modalities of its command model. Nevertheless, while this academic along with
administrative framework is most likely under university control, the governance framework
and leadership in many cases are strongly molded by national level regulating bodiesthe
express. Besides, another important element inside structure of governing body is whether
they comprise additional members along with how these are generally selected. This may
mean the selection can be carried out by this universities themselves and/or by an additional
body or perhaps authority (Estermann & Nokkala, the year just gone: 7).
The power of universities to select their executive leadership is usually another key indicator
of the organizational autonomy. The university leadership frequently comprises numerous
key staff members in this institution, such as rector, this vice-rectors, the top of
administration along with the faculty deans. It's quite to identify that the legislation specifies
this composition along with the competencies of such collection (Estermann & Nokkala,
2009).
As a final point assessed this role on the rector depending on governing bodies on the
institution also results in a deeper comprehension of the amount and characteristics of
organizational autonomy. This factor can also be affected by the nature on the university
framework under research. For example, if universities follow this dual framework of

administration, then this rectors relation to the body which is mainly responsible for more
long term strategic selections, such as picking out statutes, ideal plans, number of the rector
along with vice-rectors, and so forth, the aboard; in opposition to the body mainly interested
in academic affairs- this senate seemingly different.
3.1.2 Financial autonomy
A different significant as well as complex aspect of institutional autonomy would be the
scope of universities personal autonomy (Kohtamaki, 2009). In other words, financial
autonomy can be a crucial factor allowing universities to realize their ideal goals. In line with
Eastermann & Nokkala, (2009: 18) personal autonomy mainly is the term for the issues-in
certain:
a. The extent to which they accumulate supplies and maintain surplus about state money
b. The power of universities setting tuition charges,
c. Their capacity to borrow money about the financial markets
d. Their capacity to invent in financial loans
e. Their capacity to issue explains to you and provides
f. Their capacity to own the particular land as well as buildings they occupy
Financial autonomy is obviously the area where the links on the other proportions of
autonomy are greatest and can therefore hardly be regarded as in solitude. The power or
inability of universities to decide on tuition charges has benefits for college student
admissions, national restrictions on salaries for all or some groups of staff impinge about
staffing autonomy plus the capacity in order to freely use income specifically affects a chance
to implement a defined strategy. Generally it is usually said that will universities capacity to
control fully as well as allocate their own budget internally is usually an important
component their personal autonomy. Besides, the method by which funding is allocated is
another important aspect that demonstrates how unbiased universities take action vis--vis the
particular political specialists. Thus, this indicates appropriate to summarize, if there is not
certain freedom to behave independently with regards to financial troubles, and next the other
proportions of autonomy may likewise exist only in theory.
Moreover, one of the most important factors within the financial autonomy would be the
method of allocating of funding in the state on the universities. It is becoming apparently

clear how the role from the state about financing it's HEIs is diminishing from time to time.
Hence, a big burden is made for universities to manage up using less funding with more
college students and large goals. Declined state money, however, could result throughout
greater institutional autonomy (Fielden, 2008). Besides, nowadays it also becomes any
fashion in order to issue prohibit grants pertaining to HEIs because essential ingredient of
institutional autonomy. On the other hand, for educational facilities with full autonomy via a
block grant allocation of funds the particular natural result is likely forced to offer their
money body using genuine reports on what the money continues to be spent, and also other
statistics associated with performance as well as outputs (Fielden, 2008). Consequently
autonomy is connected with accountability.
Many scholars think that enhanced institutional autonomy has additionally implied advanced
of liability for high quality assurance for the state and also institutional degrees.
Accountability is additionally considered just as one important aspect in the governance of
HE process. This might also indicate the particular recognition that there is a public curiosity
about tertiary education which should be matched while using advantages which usually
institutional autonomy can result in (OECD, 2008). With regard to this, De Boer & Data file,
(2009: 13) comment, Greater accountability includes that HEIs need to redefine the ways
that they inform their stakeholders regarding their performance. Additional demands they fit
on the particular academic control, which therefore requires fresh modes of communication
using and assistance from the decentralized devices (faculties, universities, institutes,
departments).
While using existing situation of international locations, accountability comes through a
sizable variety of channels. By way of example, many international locations have rigid rules
controlling the place of fresh institutions, accreditation system to ensure quality expectations
and skilled examinations in order to filter access to professional careers for example
engineering, treatments or legislation. Governments furthermore rely increasingly on
performance-based spending budget allocation mechanisms for example funding supplements
or cut-throat funds about the supply aspect or funds, vouchers and so to speak . on the
particular demand aspect (Salmi, 2007: 328-329).
3.1.3 Staffing autonomy

Staffing autonomy is targeted on such matters because the capacity connected with
universities to help recruit their staff, the obligation for terminology of job contracts in
addition to civil servants standing (Estermann & Nokkala, 2009). However, as it had been
mentioned preceding, the capability of universities to settle on staff recruitment is actually
integrally linked to their personal and academic autonomy. Seeing that staff earnings and job
contracts are usually, to an incredible degree, determined because of the financial agreements
between the university in addition to their funders in addition to financial restrictions on
staffing directly affect the opportunity to recruit the appropriate staff (OECD, 2008). It is also
necessary to help analyse staffing autonomy in relation to an institutions academic and
personal autonomy. Additionally, staffing autonomy can be analysed because of the
recruitment procedures linked to the consultation of senior academic workers, the standing of
college or university employees (whether regarded as civil servants or even not; along with
the salary amounts of the workers (Estermann & Nokkala, last year: 40).
Consequently, it might be deduced that one of many important components of staffing
autonomy will be the extent to help which schools have control within the financial aspects
linked to their workers (OECD, 2008). This consists of the total salary charges and personal
salary ranges, as well because the degree connected with flexibility schools have in the
recruitment connected with staff (even when procedures are usually regulated to a certain
degree). Universities staffing autonomy is restricted whenever schools are generally unable
to settle on their staffing policy, including recruitment routines, salary ranges, and stint. If
these types of issues are usually set to a large degree because of the public government
bodies, the schools are remaining with tiny capacity to regulate overall wage expenses, or
prepare incentives intended for attracting premium quality staff.
3.1.4 Academic autonomy
Academic autonomy pertains, among various other matters, to universities capability to
determine their particular institutional technique. In various other words, the ability on the
universities to be able to define their particular basic missions regarding research as well as
teaching orientation and also other activities as well as including decisions regarding which
usually actions are necessary to very best achieve these kinds of missions. It is clear of which
universities capability to define their particular institutional technique also variations
important aspects of the various other dimensions connected with autonomy and may even
therefore be regarded as a overarching framework of most their activities. The electrical

power of universities to discover their school profile is also another crucial dimension
connected with academic autonomy. Moreover, the capability of colleges to add or discourage
degree programs; and to settle on the construction and content of the programmes will also be
considered seeing that essential components of school autonomy. As a final point, the
assignments and duties of universities regarding the high quality assurance connected with
programmes as well as degrees; and the extent to that they can decide on student admissions
may also be the components of school autonomy connected with universities (Estermann &
Nokkala, 2009).
The capability of universities to settle on key issues in connection with picking a students
(student admission) is also an crucial ingredient connected with academic autonomy. This can
be analysed on the following perspectives. First, whether universities are able to decide upon
overall amounts of students. Minute, if they are able to decide about the numbers connected
with student per discipline. 3rd, if they have control above student entry mechanisms. Final,
the must comply together with special quotas is also one principle elements connected with
academic autonomy with student assortment (OECD, 2008).
Hence, in terms of school autonomy, key issues range from the ability connected with
universities to settle on their school profiles, especially instructional responsibilities
(conferring degrees using some areas), and the ability to select individuals. And, one ways of
giving better autonomy to be able to institutions can be granting separate legal position to
HEIs. Put simply, having separate legal status signifies that the organizations concerned tend
to be legally accountable for their operating. Other factors remain frequent, universities
should have at the very least the autonomy to raise funds as well as manage assets looking for
the base goals (OECD, 2009).
This dimensions connected with autonomy (Eastermann & Nokkala, 2009) specified the level
of actions that you should possible pertaining to autonomous HEIs. However, the main
question is if the dimensions connected with autonomy displayed above guarantee the full
autonomy connected with HEIs. The answer is, they just don't. This does work, mainly,
because it's not at all the components of autonomy detailed by different scholars tend to be
incomplete, rather there isn't a such issue as absolute or total autonomy. Autonomy can be a
relative concept or relational concerning the balance connected with power concerning
HEIs and the government about the one side, and concerning administrative as well as

academic career within institutions about the other (van Vught, 1989). In addition, Salmi,
(2007: 226) recommends, increased autonomy doesn't mean the lack of control. In addition
to, he additional commented of which autonomy really should not be confused together with
total self-reliance. Therefore, autonomy can be meaningful and then the extent who's actually
encourages institutions in a responsible method. In various other words, Mahony, (1992: 14)
recommends at the very least universities should get rid government interference with
regards to: course written content, methods connected with assessment, the conduct
connected with research, the consultation of staff and the free manifestation of sights and
opinions.
Moreover, it would seem clear which the movement to deregulation in the governance
connected with HEIs contributes to various types of institutional autonomy. Therefore,
different policies that help universities need to be freed through over-regulation as well as
micro-management although accepting which the equivalent liability to modern society starts
to be able to emerge. Also, it can be widely accepted in much more policy documents that
much more autonomy inside the HEIs can lead to improved performance of those universities
in particular and the HE system generally. The backbone with this argument rests about the
autonomous HEIs having the ability to control as well as steer their particular outcomes as
well as performance (de Boer & Data file 2008). Emphasising the advantages of having
autonomy in a university Fielden, (2008: 18) reviews:
If a group of institutions in a university program is presented autonomy to respond to national
policy goals while they think in shape, there can be a reasonable chance that they can choose
various ways of reaching a similar goal knowning that some could be more innovative
compared to others. Had they been centrally aimed, this variety might have been less likely.
However, you can find barriers with granting autonomy to be able to universities. These
limitations partly emanate on the fear on the government of which institutions are not
competent plenty of to exercising the powers as effectively and efficiently as you can.
Besides, there's also a deep seated belief which the managerial expertise of school professors
are not up towards standard to be able to lead their particular institutions in the highly
sophisticated and reasonably competitive world (Fielden, 2008).

Last but not least, the essential motto driving institutional autonomy can be that institutions
that are capable to control their particular future perform superior to otherwise. They might
have the motive to succeed if they are able to directly take advantage of their actions; they
will also be entrepreneurial as well as achieve the reward or they might be timed to see their
competition institutions get the best of them (Fielden, 2008). In any case, it can be strongly
argued the most significant governance pattern in She has been the widening connected with
institutional autonomy (de Boer & Data file, 2009; Eurydice, 2008 and OECD, 2008).
Thus, it is usually deduced of which any activities that end in the overall flexibility or
capability of almost any HEIs to do and accomplish their quest and eyesight without
unnecessary rules, regulations as well as or sanctions is usually called institutional autonomy.
Naturally, however, while guaranteeing institutional autonomy as well as academic freedom
are classified as the basic requirements for the overall performance on the universities, it is
additionally generally accepted that government features a legitimate involvement in
exercising have an effect on on HE / SHE system (McDaniel, 1996). Emphasizing the role on
the government Moor, (1993: 61) recommends that No country in the world has a
government which doesn't retain many control above its universitiesuniversities tend to be
public products and services. The issue, therefore, is just not whether government should
have some command over colleges, but somewhat, how very much control as well as where it
must be exercised.
Consequently, it can be natural to anticipate states to possess effective function or
intervention in guiding their HE / SHE system. However, the intervention may be harmful
when it is done with the expense on the autonomy connected with universities.

3.2.2 Institutional theory

3.2.2.1 Introduction
In todays world, organisations throughout the world have experienced political,
regulatory and technological conditions that put pressures on them. Given that
conditions affect capabilities of organisations to cope with such pressures to
guarantee organisational survival (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996). This could be the
reason why organisational change has become a popular topic of organisational

studies. When discussing about organisational change, two main different

perspectives have been widely utilised to explain the concept. First, the dominant
approach, which is technical perspective, suggests that organisations change in
order to improve their performance or effectiveness. Second, an alternative
perspective, which is provided by institutional theory, offers an idea that
organisations change in order to achieve greater legitimacy, not more effective
performances (Ashworth, Boyne, & Delbridge, 2007).
Institutional theory is based on sociological perspective and even though, it is
contrasted with some other traditional organisational perspectives, it is attractive to a
number of organisational scholars (Zucker, 1987). The theory is one of the
magnificent theories that has been broadly used to explain organisational actions
over the past few decades (Dacin, Goodstein, & Scott, 2002). As the theory was
developed from a number of rigorous empirical and theoretical work, it has been
increasingly become popular and powerful. The origins of institutional theory are
various and its meaning is disparate depending on the emphasis and context of
disciplines as it has been pursued in a variety of phenomena including, social
sciences, politics and economics. Thus, it is easier to identify what it is not than what
it is (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 2005).
According to, DiMaggio and Powells work (1983), there are two concepts of
institutionalisms

namely

old

institutionalism

and

new

institutionalism

or

neoinstitutionalism. These two concepts share have similarities in some points, yet
difference in a number of main concerns. In the earlier work, along with informal
structure and power, the central emphases were issues of influence, coalitions and
competing values.

In contrast with, the latter work, which the centrality of

classification, routines, scripts and schema, issues of legitimacy and embeddedness

of organisational field were the main focuses. The starting point of institutional theory
was begun in the 1940s by the work of Weber on bureaucracy, which inspired a
group of sociologists in that time; Phillip Selznick and his associates as an example.
A collection of works was conducted during the 1940s, until in the 1950s; there was
an obvious connection between institutions and organisations (Scott, 2008). It had
been a developmental years of the insight work to emerge more complex ideas
during the 1960s and 1970s, which have become a fundamental concept of the
recent institutionalism called neoinstitutionalism (Scott, 2008).
3.2.2.2 Neoinstitutionalism

Neoinstitutionalism became well known since 1977 when Meyer and Rowan
(1977) presented their work to challenge the most dominant view of the open system
model. While, open system model suggested that the nature of organisational
change is that organisations attempt to improve their performance in order to
exchange their substantive products with their environments, they argued that
environmental constraints restrict organisational capabilities to initiate changes
(Hanson, 2006). Subsequently, there wereas a number of work had been developed
but the level of analysis was different. While, Meyer and Rowan made an argument
on macro level of analysis, Lynne Zucker who was Mayers student developed the
micro level.
Thereafter, another stream of work, which focused on environmental
perspective, was developed by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) and Meyer and Scott
(1983). This perspective has become prominent especially in sociological field.
Drawing on DiMaggio and Powell work (1983,1991), which inherited from the earlier
work of Meyer and Rowan (1977), the concept of institutional theory under their
ideas was stress on organisations homogeneity not changes. They asserted that the
competitive market as a primary force provoking organisational change no longer
exists. Instead, it was institutional forces stimulating changes in organisations
regardless of their organisational efficiency or effectiveness. Organisations were
embedded in organisation fields, where were significantly diverse when the fields
were not well defined, which normally happened at the beginning stage of
organisational life circle. This can be understood that changes are more likely to
occur in the first stage due to the variation ofin the fields. However, once the fields
become mature, they will develop static characteristics, which permeated into
organisations within the fields and eventually, push them toward similarity (DiMaggio
& Powell, 1983; Kraatz & Zajac, 1996; Scott, 2005). However, Meyer and Scott
argued that both technical and institutional forces do impact on all organisations but
the level of such impact is varied depending on types of organisations (Scott, 2008).
In other words, some kinds of organisations are more vulnerable to one force than
the other. For example, educational organisations are more likely to experience
stronger institutional pressures than industrial organisations (Scott, 2005). By
organisational fields, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) defined them as those
organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life:
key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other

organizations that produce service or product (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p. 2). The
term has become a prominent concept widely used as the unit of analysis in
institutional studies. The concept of organisational fields reflects comprehensive
ideas of connectedness and structural equivalence.
As mentioned above, the earlier work and ideas of institutional theory are
different. They most likely depend on individual premises resulting in difficulties in
inclusive discussion every assumption. Drawing on Scotts work (2005,2008), he
aggregated the various assumptions and provided a very broad definition of
institutions that
Institutions are comprised of regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive
elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and
meaning to social life. (Scott, 2008, p. 48).
According to the definition, there are three main components of institutions
comprising of rules, norms and cultural-cognitive beliefs. These three elements are
recognised as a symbolic system and along with associated behaviors and
resources, will shape institutional structures, which in turn guide behaviors and resist
change

(Scott,

2008).

Moreover,

institutions

are

processes

involving

in

institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation and move through space over time by a

variety of carriers. However, which carriers would be utilised areis varied by theorists
preference depending on which elements they emphasis. These carriers are
important foundations to examine institutional changes. As a result, more analysts
are interested in how institutions undergo change rather than stability as stressed by
the theory.
The three main ingredients of institutions
The key ingredients of institutions consist of regulative, normative and culturalcognitive facets Scott (2005) termed as pillars. Some theorists might favor one
over the others but in general they all together contribute to institutional framework.
However, each facet has its own distinction so it is useful to distinguish and discuss
their characteristics, indicators and mechanisms (Scott, 2005), which will be
explained as follows;
1) Regulative element
Most scholars stresses their attention on this aspect especially, state agencies
as rules maker. In institutionalism, the concept of regulation is a process attempting
to capture future behaviors through establishing rules, monitoring and manipulating

activities. The process could be done in both formal and informal ways. DiMaggio
and Powell (1983) suggested the concept of coercion as a mechanism of such
controlling.
2) Normative element
Normative aspect emphasises prescription, evaluation and obligation on social
life and consists of two important concepts, which are values and norms. Values are
the cultural standard indicating preferable and desirable activities and behaviors.
Norms are more likely about what goals or objectives need to be achieved. Thus,
this system concentrates on goals and objectives defined also the appropriate
pursuit of them. However, not every values and norms are pertinent to everyone in
every circumstance. In some circumstances, some values and norms could only be
applicable to specific actors or positions and that emerges the concept of roles,
which are the conceptions of the behaviors expected of specific actors.
3) Cultural-cognitive element
A collective set of sociologists and organisational scholars claimed the culturalcognitive aspect that it is the shared conceptions that constitute the nature of social
reality and the frames through which meaning is made (Scott, 2008, p. 57). This
aspect focuses the impact of culture as an external environment on how it shapes
institutions. Moreover, institutions operate in multiple levels and in a variety of
contexts so the actions might vary from context to context. Thus, the degree of
culture supporting each actor is also different. The actors reaction is subject to vary
and depends on their cognition and interpretation of the symbols such as words and
signs (A Posthuma, 2009).
These three institutional elements are transported from time to time through a
diversity of carriers. These carriers convey the ideas, thought and concept through
space over time and they have an effect on the nature of the messages. The subject
of carriers is related to a number of descriptions. Such description could be new
technologies, innovation, and adoption of reform et cetera. Scott (2008) identified
four kinds of institutional carriers including symbolic systems, relational system,
routines and artifacts. Symbolic systems operate in the form of rules, norms, values,
scripts and schema in order to guide behaviors. Relational systems function through
the concept of role systems and lie across organisational boundaries. This can lead
to structural isomorphism or structural equivalence. Routines are associated with
repetitive activities reflecting actors tacit knowledge resulting in behavioral stability in

organisation. Artifacts are referred to material culture created by human that once
they are embodied, they become meaningful. In more recent sense, artifacts can
also be referred to technologies. Moreover, artifacts can add value into particular
ideas so more actors will adopt such ideas. Consequently, new set of standards is
created. However, in many circumstances, the ideas and message do not just move
and have been told but they are edited, changed, integrated and finally transformed
to new meanings (Scott, 2008).
Taking into consideration the statement above, it can be seen that
organisations are encompassed by institutional environments, which penetrate
institutional features across organisational boundaries. Such environments are
bounded by cultural elements permeated into organisations in the form of taken-forgranted behaviors and established rules as templates for them. However, given
institutional contexts could constrain and support organisations in different ways as
institutional elements are conveyed over time and are interpreted by various carriers
and actors because the message and ideas they carry around, in some
circumstances, are interpreted, integrated, blended with some other ideas and finally
be transformed. Therefore, organisations might adopt new structures that comply
with their environment or they might respond to their environment by developing
alternative strategies (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 2005; Zucker, 1987).
3.2.2.3 Institutional isomorphism
As discussed prior, under the perspective of institutional theory, even though
there are two types of isomorphism which are institutional and competitive
isomorphism, the primary objective of organisations is to obtain legitimacy not to
increase performance. Legitimacy is a generalized perception or assumption that
the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially
constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions. (Suchman, 1995b , p
574). The easiest way for an organisation to receive legitimacy is to conform to
institutional environmental demands. In doing this, organisations will be securely
insured their reputation, acceptability and public recognisability, which are more vital
than directly improving technical performances or effectiveness (Scott, 2005). Such
environmental demands push organisations in a field to adopt similar structures even
though they are emerged differently. This situation is termed as institutional
isomorphism by DiMaggio and Powell (1983). The competitive isomorphism may
exist in an organisational field where organisations within such field can freely, widely

and openly compete and may not adequate to capture organisations in todays world
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Hawley (1968) described isomorphism that
isomorphism is a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to
resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions
(Hawley, 1968 as cited in DiMaggio & Powell, 1983 p, 149).
The insight knowledge and assumptions of isomorphism were first introduced
by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), which have become the dominant work to date.
According to their work, there are three mechanisms that pressure organisations to
face institutional isomorphism consisting of normative, coercive and mimetic. Each
mechanism has its own distinctions, which are potential to identify predictors of
isomorphic change. Acknowledging the isomorphic change predictors contributes to
understanding why some organisations are responsive to pressures, while others are
intractable.
Normative pressures
Normative pressures are the influence of professionalisation and its networks
on organisations. The antecedence of the forces is education and training from
professional centres, such as universities or others professional agencies. These
professional groupings share a similar orientation. They also shape institutional
forms by creating standards, values and accrediting certifications. Moreover, they
expand such institutional forms across organisations through their communities or
networks and that diffusion accelerates homogeneity over organisational fields as
organisations are induced to conform to the institutional forms in order to be
recognised as legitimate organisations. With the effects of normative forces,
organisations that tend to dependently recruit their employees on academic
qualification and that managers participate in such professional communities are
more likely to become similar to other organisations in their field (Ashworth et al.,
2007; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
Coercive pressures
Coercive pressures are forces derived from external environment that deploy
into organisations either in formal or informal ways. Normally, the pressures come in
the form of state regulations, laws, and societal expectations or even from other
dominant organisations, which coerce, convince or invite organisations to develop
desirable structures. This type of forces strongly reflects the nature of organisational

change under the perspective of institutional theory, which underlines the

prominence of political effects rather than technical effects. Thus, organisations that
rely heavily on other organisations or on the same resources tend to adopt identical
structures as the organisations they depend on (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
Mimetic pressure
Mimetic pressures are forces that usually occur when organisations are
experiencing uncertainty circumstances. Such circumstances could be due to
organisational goal ambiguity or deficient technologies and solutions become
problematic. Given these situations, organisations tend to mimic structures, systems
or activities of other similar organisations they perceive as prestigious or successful
organisations without any proof of greater performance (Ashworth et al., 2007).
In addition, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) also illustrated the assumptions of
isomorphic change under the field-level predictors, which took the aspects of
resource dependency, transaction with state agencies, a variety of organisational
models, technology unpredictability, professionalisation process and structuration of
an organisational field in to account. They claimed that the higher degree of those
aspects occurring within a field, the greater level of isomorphism.
Moreover, it is important to bear in mind that institutional pressures do not only
constrain organisations and organisational fields by creating pattern for them but
also individual level by influencing the way of thought. DiMaggio and Powell (1991)
confirmed this view in their statement that to the extent managers and key staffs
are drawn from the same universities and filtered in a common set of attributes, they
will tend to view problems in a similar fashion, see the same policies, procedures,
and structures as normatively sanctioned and legitimized, and approach decisions in
much the same way (p, 72).
In conclusion, these pressures are bound to have an effect on isomorphism of
individual, organisations and organisational fields. The influence of isomorphism is
expected to encompass organisational main features. Frumkin and Galaskiewicz
(2004) argued that the only institutional mechanism that associates with environment
of organisational fields is coercive forces. The other two mechanisms are related to
roles and structures within the fields. However, conforming to such pressures do not
guarantee organisational effectiveness in technical way. Being recognised as
legitimate or prestigious organisations in public opinions is the explicit benefit of
being similar to other organisations. Though, organisational effectiveness could be

reinforced in the easier forms of attracting quality staff, accessing to vital resources
and contacting with other organisations when compared with those who do not
obtain legitimacy (Ashworth et al., 2007; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Frumkin &
Galaskiewicz, 2004).
3.2.2.4 Institutional theory and Organisational change
Institutional theory is the theory that stresses the impact of environment on
organisational fields. An organisational field is surrounded by environment, which
contains of institutional features such as norms, values, regulations, societal
expectation and et cetera. These institutional features can be presented whether
formal or informal forms and are bound to have an effect on organisations within the
field. Such institutional features diffuse across the field boundaries resulting in
connectedness of organisations. Once organisations are tied together, they seem to
share agreement, awareness and information through the network leading them to
become legitimated patterned. A number of scholars arguing that when organisations
face fragmented or uncertainty situations, - conflicts between various authorities,
goal ambiguity are examples- they have a tendency to increase their internal stability
by advancing routines and internal structures (Meyer, 1992 as cited in Hanson,
2006). Given these circumstances, organisations are restricted their ability to change
and more likely to be solid.
Even though, institutional theory emphasises on the environment that
constrains and limits organisational capability to change, it cannot be concluded that
changes will not be occurred. Scott (2008) and Scott and his associates (2000)
asserted a strong statement confirming that organisational fields could be
problematic and weak. This situation allows other institutional features to permeate
into the fields and that causes varying set of behaviors.
While fields provide a framework for locating and bounding the phenomena of
interest, we must not assume that they are not problematic and unchanging (Scott,
Ruef, Mendel, & Caronna, 2000, p. 13).
In regard to institutional change, this claim is in line with Ashworth and his associates
(2007) who stated that
The possibility of change is identified and associated with the opportunities
created by various antecedents of deinstitutionalization following which institutional
norms may be challenged (Ashwort et al., 2007, p.168).
The concept of agency plays a significant role in contributing to institutional

change as it captures ability of an actor to make a difference, which is meaningful in

the social world (Scott, 2008; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Oliver, 1991). Agency is one
of the essential institutional constructs. Thus, even though institutions constrain
agency behaviours, it also can empower agency in the institutional processes (Scott,
2005).

In other words, even though institutions formulate actors through rules,

norms and beliefs, they are capable of reformulating those institutional features.
Therefore, the models of institutional processes can be both top-down and bottomup (Scott,1995, 2001).
Drawing on DiMaggio and Powell work (1991), organisations function in what
they termed institutional spheres where rules, power and action are generated.
Thus, the institutional spheres are the important and powerful sources of institutions
and contain of three contexts including internal structure of the organisation, a
collection of organisation in the organisational field and the state. These three
contexts are constrained by institutions, simultaneously; they have a remarkable
power to change, create a new set of logics for organisational fields. However, there
are four conditions that might prevent or encourage actors to perform organisational
change. Such conditions consist of the role of internal structure, existing strategies
and power of organisations, actors and interests, the role of new organisations as
models for other organisations and institutionalisation forces.
Although, internal structure such as existing goals, strategies, systems and
characteristics restricts organisational action, organisational authority can enhance
changes by altering, transforming or editing those institutional limits if it is in their
interest. Regarding the term authority, there are two types of them. One is the
formal authority refers to those who have hierarchical power as structured in
organisational structure. The other is informal authority who does not have official
position but is authorised power to allocate resources of the organisation. Therefore,
power and interest of actors are essential to initiate changes.
The second context is organisational field- its meaning has been discussed
prior- where a set of organisations operate in and is constrained by institutions. It is
notified that the field is controlled by an individual organisation or a collection of
organisations on the basis of their size and cooperation. In other words, the bigger
size of and the greater degree of cooperation in organisation, the more powerful the
organisation is in determining other organisations in the field.
The third one is the state, which is considered as the most influential sources of

institutions because it can regulate any organisational field without being a member
by establishing rules and creating legitimisation, which could limit the organisational
action. However, the state can at the same time empower authority to innovate
institutions.
Additionally, beside the combination wok of the three contexts and the four
conditions, there is another condition, which is shock that stimulates organisational
change in a mature field. In a well-established field, where organisations are
profoundly structured by institutions, shock is crucial to be used to stimulate actors
perception of need for change. The state and organisational field are the
fundamental sources that bring about the shock in order to alter the rules. Here, the
process of institutionalisation will begin again when an organisation or a collection of
organisations performs change and they yield excellent outcomes. This will strike the
perception of need for change of other organisations actors to follow such change
even though the successful result could not be guaranteed. Once an adequate
number of organisations adopt the change, the new logics will be institutionalised
and diffused across the organisational field, which eventually, will be defined as
desirable alternative logics for organisations within the field. This suggestion is
consistent with Hanson (2006) who argued that there are three different external
environmental forces initiating organisational change including environmental shifts,
environmental shocks and environmental regression.
Environmental shift is related to incremental change and is more likely to
happen when an organisation or a set of organisations in a field alters the existing
requirement or expectation. As the nature of this type of force is incremental rather
than radical, any changes occurring are also in incremental sense. In contrast to
environmental shift, environmental shocks are involved in radical change due to its
serious condition. The shocks could be taken place by considerable shift of laws,
technology and societal expectation. When organisational field experiences the
dramatic shocks, the institutions in the field seem to be vulnerable causing
undermining of public confidence. As a consequence, major change tends to be
taken place. Lastly, environmental regression is the situation where an organisational
activity is not in accordance with what is considered, as acceptable point in the field,
the organisation will be pressure to conform to accepted norms.
3.2.2.5 Institutionalism and public sector (Higher education)
It is notable that organisations do not experience the same level of institutional

pressures. One might be influenced by isomorphism heavier than others. Especially,

public organisations, which are non-profit organisations, they are considered as key
players in precipitating institutionalisation into other organisations and cause
homogeneity. They are more likely to be subjects of isomorphism rather than objects
by establishing regulations for, accrediting, allocating funds and resources for,
monitoring performance of other organisations. The reason that these organisations
are more susceptible to institutional forces than profit organisations is because they
do not have neither owner, who monitors benefit of the organisations nor tangible
organisational goals and performance. Such conditions cause complication of the
non-profit organisations. Therefore, in order to avoid uncertainty and obtain
accountability and legitimacy, they tend to embrace external key stakeholders
opinion and adopt their structures to comply with the stakeholders expectation
(Frumkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004; Hanson, 2006). The idea is supported by Frumkin
and Galaskiewicz work published in 2004 under the title of Institutional isomorphism
and Public sector organizations. They found that governmental organisations are in
fact more vulnerable to coercive, normative and mimetic forces than other
organisations.
Higher education sector is no exception to experience the greater level of
isomorphism as it is also recognised as non-profit organisation and is under the
same complicated situations. Goals of education organisations are ambiguous and
difficult to clearly define (Hanson, 2006). Moreover, education organisations are in
public interest because they are a prominent source of new knowledge and are one
of the important factors to enhance national competitiveness. As a result, society
tends to have high expectation of such organisations. Therefore, key stakeholders
who support and fund the organisations such as; state, students, parents and
associated organisations have efforts to define the desirable goals for the education
organisations in order to avoid public scepticism. The integrity of such diverse goals
leads to the mission burden of higher education, which resource supports are
performance-based. Responding to those stakeholders norms, values and beliefs
may interfere with existing norms, values and beliefs embedded in universities. This
circumstance put the universities under pressure to prioritise such environmental
demands because obeying to one demand may invalidate others. In this situation,
the universities are more likely to conform to the demands they feel will most secure
their survival (Scott, 2007).

3.2.2.6 Institutional logics meaning

According to Thornton, 2004, as cited in Greenwood et al, 2011, institutional
logics are predominately standards and rules that set the understanding and analysis
of what is appropriate behaviour and how to prosper within the organization (pg.
318). Different organizations cope in many ways with challenges when faced with
multi facidit social situations. These logics help the company to operate within a
social world and performing according to the set logics that may from time to time
form an opposing opinion. These logics may also become a confrontation when it
appears not be unsuitable or contradictory to what the company or organisation is
subjected to. Many of these logics actually become a contradiction when behaviours
set out for example within an academic institution that exhibits both science and a
commercial setting through an open publication and continuum yet displays the
proprietary right to retain and profitable manipulation of the final research results. Not
only is the institution faced with complexities such as these but also those who
represent the different profession each with its own cognitive and prescriptive system
(Greenwood , et al, 2011).
The researcher Scott (2008), claims that the organization that faces these
issues cope through processes that exist within these surroundings.
3.2.2.7 Institutional complexity in the emerging context (from Greenwood,
2011; Dunn Jones, 2010; Krattz and Block, 2008; Pache and Santos, 2011, 2012)
-

field structure; formal-informal, fragmentation, centralisation

org. characteristic
1 field position
2 structure
3 ownership and governance
4 identity

3.2.2.8 Impact of institutional complexity (from article Krattz and Block, 2008)

3.2.2.9 Organisational responses to institutional complexity (from Greenwood,

2011; Krattz and Block, 2008; Pache and Santos, 2011, 2012; Oliver, 1991)
o strategies and structure
o hybrid org.
HYBRIDS
According to Economist, 2009 (as cites in Pache & Santos 2013) hybrid
companies are hard in predicting their performances because of this internal
business functioning.
Hybrid organisations according to Battilana & Dorado, 2010 (as cited in Pache
& Santos 2012) are fields of inconsistencies as for example, when social or
commercial undertakings are caught up between capitalistic market demands and
state or welfare benefits, which are based on profit or non-profit. This leads to the
question whether to invest in its owners or those who participate in its collective
missions. The researchers, Pache & Santos 2012, address the issue that hybrids
need to deal with external demands of those involved.

Many hybrids find themselves limited to the public demand, but should
research other possibilities such as Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) or
biotechnology companies. Both these variables have the necessary logics such as
private market, state and science logics that will predict future organisations
behaviour. Powell & Sandholtz, 2012 (as cited in Pache &Santos 2012) mention a
further logic namely that of health care and academics.

Because of the omnipresence of these hybrids, we are reminded of the

continuous exposing of these organisations over a long period of time to a collective
institutional logic, which dictates what embodies legitimate practice, taken for
granted perceptions of expected goals and what are justifiable actions necessary to
achieve these goals (p. 973). Many of these emerging hybrids succeed through their
expanded institutional references (Greenwood et al., 2011).

Pache & Santos, 2012) state clearly the complexity under which hybrids exist
and functions. Hybrids, according to the researchers actually challenge the
hypothesis of organisations as essentialising a template of coherent ideas or basis in
order to secure support and sanctioned authenticity from external institutional
referents DiMaggio & Powell, 1983,( as cited in Pache & Santos, 2012).

As incompatibility within logics strengthen organisations experiences,

amplified confrontations as opposed logics may eventually find themselves in
disfavour with not only external referents, but they now also face an internal conflict
situations. Not only are the hybrid organisations faced with a dilemma of accepting
these competing logics for a longer time period instead of that of a temporary
situation. Research according to Belsharov & Smith, 2012 (as cited in Pache
&Santos, 2012) shows that these hybrid institutions either keep these opposing
logics separate or try to unite them in some way. It is suggested by Greenwood et al.
2011, that very little of how organisations deal with logic, are shown. The gap of
substantiating the acceptance or non-acceptance is important as this clearly
indicates how the organisations deal with these logics, Powell & Colyvas, 2008, (as
cited in Pache & Santos, 2012).
The researchers, Pache & Santos, 2012, further explore how hybrid
organisations internally encompass opposing logics by using work interrogations
social enterprises (WISE) case studies, to demonstrate how they incorporate them
(p.973). These studies also show how previously unemployed individuals are now
hired to show a dichotomy between commercials logics (market demand) and social
welfare (re-reinstating the unemployed). In these studies the researchers indicate
that opposing logics are systematically amalgamated but also how these logics are
selectively linked. These couplings of opposing logics and contested legitimacy take
place by way of a Trojan horse system (p. 973). This concludes that when there is
a commercial origin, a welfare logic was found to be more prevailing than what the
original logic was intended for. Thus, as the researchers further debate and clarify,
hybrid organisations take advantage of multiple organising elements on hand in a
diverse environment.

Earlier research showed a clear disassociation of opposing logics but has

since changed and insinuated at logics combinations (Greenwood et al., 2011).

Decoupling

involved

disguised

conforming

to

the

meaning

of

understanding of the environment, but non-implementation at operational stage gap

between a pseudo adapted policy and organisational behaviour is credited by
decoupling, Tilcsik, 2010, (as cited in Pache & Santos, 2012). If an external policy
conflicts with an organisational practice, they will cleverly adapt one that is more
acceptable to their own internal influences. It is also assumed that decoupling
research has proven a record of loyalty by all members of the organisation to protect
the logic (p.974). They also manage to avoid any scrutiny from external influences
(Pache & Santos, 2012). This avoidance is not easily managed over a long period of
time and so decoupling is hard to maintain.

Further according to the researchers Pache & Santos, 2012, compromise,

also forms part of the strategy to reconcile competing requirements. Such clear
evidence is found in the health care industry when medical care logics and economic
productivity imposed by the government, conformed to the minimal standard of both
these logics to secure both professional and political support (p.975).

Limited compromising on different logics, leads to incomplete securing of

organisational support and ultimately leads to unsatisfied external referent support
and expectations. It is further stated that compromise may not always be a strategy
to rely on as logics create and promote competing goals or when the organisation
finds itself incompatible or unable to modify given logics (Pache & Santos,,2012).

Greenwood et al, 2011, does however suggest that if the organisation would
be able to use activities drawn from the different logics it might be able to secure

backing and recommendation from a variety of field level actors (p. 975). Such an
example is displayed by the research of the Tracey et al, 2011 study, (as cited in
Pache & Santos, 2012), of how Aspire, a hybrid company, bridged commercial and
charity logics to defeat homelessness. Although there is success, according to the
researcher, there is also a huge emphasis on the internal trials and oppositions of
accepting opposing logics. Aspire, however collapsed a few years ago as it could not
continue to satisfy the demands of the external establishments, such as the
homeless and other beneficiaries. Research done on organisational responses is left
with

many

unanswered

questions,

especially

whether

concepts

such

as

compromising and decoupling are questioned as viable strategies Pache & Santos,
2012.

Through the Pache & Santos, 2012 study, it was found that organisations
continually struggle with a challenge of internal conflict. Such conflicts can harm and
escalate into major issues. The researchers however, suggest that this conflict can
be lessened, if internal conflict on goals can be avoided. Different strategies should
be put into place, to address internal conflict or a difference of setting goals arise.

Although another major challenge is facing support from external referents,

organisations must be seen to comply or fractionally submit to the conflicting
directions, as laid down by institutional referents.

Institutional diversity is becoming a permanent future and organisational

pretence should be seriously addressed when organisations learn to avoid or
minimise impact on demands from external referents and maximise in constituting a
realistic framework, within the operational side of hybrid organisations in order to
indicate advantages in the institutional pluralism ambience.
o strategic responses
Christine Oliver (1991)

Previous researchers have done studies on institutionalization and valuable

emphasis has been placed on the definition and functioning of organisational
environment and their corrections with the external environment.

According to Oliver (1991), remarkable research into the strategic responses

an organisation takes place when conformity pressure is applied in developing
alternative strategies. The researcher further highlights the behaviour and conditions
to which an organisation will oppose institutionalization. The main overview of a
generalized organisation has also been examined and found fault with its functions in
response to institutional pressures and expectations (p145).

Oliver (1991) studies the concurrent perception of institutional as well as

resource dependence theories and further demonstrates how passive resistance to
active conformity can follow in an organisation when pressurized and the nature of
these pressures.

In this study however it should be noted that the term, institution, is defined
not just as governmental agencies such as justice departments but any possible
interested party including public persuasions Scott 1987, (as cited in Oliver, 1991).
Further according to the research, differences exist between those who exert
external influences. These differences are placed in two definite categories as those
who control rules and beliefs in organisational existence and those who control
insufficient resources. DiMaggio & Powell, 1983 (as cited in Oliver, 1991) emphasize
the longevity of conformations and advocacy of maintaining the rules and external
norms as followed by institutional theorists. Dependence theorists, however stress
the necessity to adapt to environmental avoidance.

These differences clearly indicate a diverse responsiveness either by choice,

awareness and institutional self-interest when it comes to external restrictions.

Recourse dependence theory, focuses more on the choice of behaviour and

attitudes in controlling sources and resources. Institutional theory by differentiation,
however restricts their predictions to structural and procedural environmental
conformity. These theories therefore also explain no choice actions against accepted
norms and standards. Acceptance of these practices is quick to be accepted, if
validation is done by other organizations in such a way as to skilfully be made
indiscernible by those that accept them.

However many organizations yield to institutional pressures. This yielding or

acquiescence takes form in different ways such as habit, compliance and imitations
(p152). Habit refers to an oblivious acceptance of these standards and rules and will
reproduce previous historically repeated actions. Those that are responsible for
these actions such as teachers and students will be chosen on the foundation of
accepted definitions of these undertakings Scott, 1987 (as cited in Oliver, 1991).

Imitations refer to either oblivious or unknown following of another

organisation based on their visual success and consulting agents. When according
to the Galaskiewitz study, 1989), uncertainty raises its horns and thus it will follow
other known and trusted actors or organizations.

When however, there is a rational following of standard rules and

environmental requirements, it is obvious that compliance will follow. This is apparent
in a situation where the endorsement of the external society enhances legitimacy or
assisting in keeping organisational activities going in good faith, Meyer & Rowan,
1983 (as cited in Oliver 1991). Oliver (1991), refers to a pseudo protection of an
organisation such as the Environmental Protection Agency from public criticism
(p153).

Organizations, when confronted by conflicting expectations or disparity in

expectations efficiency and autonomy, may want to adopt a compromise. Many

organizations feel that compromising will bring a form of balance or amelioration with
external components and members, while balancing may be seen as the perfect
parity achieving chip among stakeholders and internal interests (p153). Pacifying
tactics however may be a better solution as this gives the organisation a better
resistance platform to at least conform to minimum requirements so as to not be
seen as bite the feeding hand Oliver, 1991. The researcher uses the example
where an organisation manufactures a harmful product but redesigns it to conform to
safety and/or other expectations. Reciprocal bargaining therefore takes place with
government standards and service dictated and floor level organisational bargaining
with union and consumer constituents.

Institutional as well as resource dependence theorists agree that avoidance

as an attempt to either conceal nonconformity, bulwarking themselves from
institutional obligations and finally avoiding rules and expectations, are used as
tactics as well (Oliver 1991).

Concealment tactics are done through the establishing of plans and

procedures but have no intention of ever implementing them. These tactics may also
take on many forms such as window-dressing, pretense, allegorical acceptance of
rules, requirements and norms Meyer & Rowan, 1977 (as cited in Oliver 1991). Thus
appearance of accepting and reality could only be seen as a dichotomy in theory as
appearance seems to be more important.

Another aspect of avoidance is a practice of detaching its technical activities

from being probed and evaluated Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978 (as cited in Oliver, 1991).
Institutional theorists have actually detailed the advantages of decoupling the internal
activities from external scrutiny and inspections, once it is found to be decidedly
institutionalized Meyer & Rowan, 1977 (as cited in Oliver, 1991). But as Oliver, 1991
also states, the moment decoupling is suspected, suspicion may follow on the
activities of the institution, which might result in a reduction of funding, legitimacy
and/or collective support.

Escape from responsibilities by an organisation, when too much institutional

pressure is applied, could also be implemented. For example, government
inspections may actually cause an organisation either to alter its goals or activities
and/or change its locations, as another option to reduce its liability (Oliver 1991).

A more effective way of avoidance is if the organisation experiences the

pressure on a level that it has to avoid conformity altogether, it may even alter its
domain completely. Such is where chemicals may be banned in one county but
production just shifts to a third world country (Oliver 1991).

Defiance is the fourth organisational response defined by Oliver, 1991. Here

we find dismissing challenge and attack as sub-forms of defiance. If the threat of
rules and values are perceived as relatively low, the organisation totally ignores the
requirements. An organisation may prefer not to adhere to affirmative action
requirements purely on the pretense that getting caught is relatively low. Challenge,
however is a more active response or tactic. As for example in the case of a school
conforming to institutionalized set of educational requirements set out to define the
structure and process of educational systems Meyer & rowan, 1983 (as cited in
Oliver, 1991). However, the opposite also takes place, in that alternative schools
seek accreditation through processes of their own beliefs and beliefs of effective
education (p156). Challenge as a response, could be more effective though, if it can
be rationally argued with probity. Some organizations may even feel that their own
rationale may be more above approach than the standards set out by government.
Attack as a response forms another sub-division in the defiance milieu. It is seen as
an intense aggressive action and takes the form of assault, belittle or vehemently
denounce institutionalized values by those externally expressing them (p157). This
usually occurs, when expectations are more organisation-specific rather than
generalized norm. Many organizations follow this response when the belief is that
there is little to lose through their opposition and antipathy. Manipulation forms the
final strategic response as set out by Oliver, 1991 and is seen as the most engaged

response to co-opt influence or control institutional pressure and evaluations

(p157). Co-opted might be seen as a very rational way of getting external recruitment
to support the organizations projects. This draws Olivers studies to certain
predictions for future responses. Many organizations are pressurized by external
influences. These frameworks of either conforming or resisting, are based on
questions such as why, who and what these pressures refer to and finally, where the
pressures are focused on in the organizations. The researcher further outlines these
antecedents and defines them as cause, constituents, content, control and context
(p. 159). These categories are further correlated to hypotheses that all relate to the
questions asked.

Cause predicts high acquiesce and low on manipulation. It also refers to the
rationale and proposed intentions of external exerted pressures.

The hypotheses depict a clear correlation on how the organization reacts to

external institutional pressures. Resistance will follow when rationalizing services
take place notwithstanding a counter argument of federation acceptance of change
that would be beneficial. Oliver, 1991, draws a final conclusion that environments or
organisation that are fragmented and already in existence in a highly ambitious
competitive status restrain institutional and consensus and conformity (p. 171).
Compromises on the other hand are highly forecasted where these environments are
closely interconnected.

Oliver, 1991 also suggests that all future research should be based on
empirical studies on her suggested hypotheses. Surveys could be used to further
measure internal effectiveness and then comparing it against the norms and criterion
expected by external participants.
3.2.3 Organisational Effectiveness (OE)

3.2.3.1 Conceptualisation
Organisational effectiveness has been an essential area of study in the
management field, used to improve and develop organisational practices. Several
research models have been used to measure organisational effectiveness, the main
purpose being to improve functioning of an organisation by studying the factors,
which contribute towards effectiveness. Despite the importance of organisational
effectiveness, several researchers have pointed out the confusion that persists
regarding the exact meaning of organisational effectiveness. As various studies have
used different criteria for measuring organisational effectiveness, it is not possible to
compare those studies (Steers, 1975) and it has been argued that organisational
effectiveness, because of the ambiguity surrounding the concept has become a label
frequently attached to a variety of organisational phenomenon instead of having a
specific and direct meaning (Cameron, 1978).
Despite the ambiguity concerning the concept, organisational effectiveness
can be considered as a phenomenon applicable to different sized groups operating
in a competitive environment, with goals to do better than the competing members
(Dressler, 2004). Organisational effectiveness, as a subject for this study has
different variables upon which it is dependent. Therefore, it is important to identify
organisational effectiveness as a dependent variable considered separately from
other factors which influence effectiveness and thus are to be considered as
independent variables (Anderson, 2006). There are different ways to summarise
organisational effectiveness, but most definitions consider organisational goals or
objectives as significant to organisational effectiveness. Thus, effectiveness as such
denotes the achievement of organisational objectives in relation to the external
environment and may be manifested in attainment of competitive advantage (Barney,
1991).
3.2.3.2 Effectiveness in Education sector
In the case of higher education organisations, there is a higher degree of
skepticism about the kind of commercial objectives being relevant for an educational
organisation and defensiveness, particularly amongst the academic community, for
whom an educational organisation is an academic domain without the kind of
concerns typically found in commercial organisations. There are varying factors that

need to be considered, as there has been further ambiguity in the concept of

effectiveness specifically in relation to colleges and universities. Such ambiguity,
which presents itself specifically in the case of colleges and universities, is a
characteristic of what constitutes effective performance in such organisations. As per
the nature of these specific organisations, there is an absence of measurable goals,
little direct connection between acquired resources and products (Cameron, 1986).
Moreover, there is a tradition in these organisations to resist assessment of
effectiveness that sabotages the emergence of consensual criteria of effectiveness.
Higher education organisations have fervently stated their difference from typical
organisations, and thus arguing that traditional approaches to assessment are
inapplicable to these specific organisations (March & Olsen, 1976). It is essential for
the organisational effectiveness of colleges and universities that they be judged
regularly by the constituencies with a stake in their functioning, such as accreditation
agencies, which act as enforcers of government standards, also faculty members,
parents, funders, and employers. However, there are no particular criterion of
effectiveness in place thus far, and the meaning of organisational effectiveness,
which is ambiguous in itself, becomes complicated further in the case of higher
education (Hutchins, 1977).
Various commentators, (for example Cameron 1978), have pointed out that
effort to evaluate organisational effectiveness in higher education are often seen as
attempts to scrutinize and control higher education, or merely as a focus on defects
that need to be corrected, rather than an effort to measure and improve
organisational effectiveness as a whole. The implication of such pressures upon
evaluation seems to be that measuring organisational effectiveness is deemed to be
an effort to restrict academic freedom to experiment and innovate, or to establish a
unique quality standard; thereby evaluation is looked upon from a negative viewpoint
as something that ought to be resisted rather than embraced. Also, the financial
pressures on higher education organisations has meant that these organisations
have been forced to focus on efficiency, rather than on effectiveness and as a result
most of the research in organisation effectiveness is focused on efficiency. As
(Meeth, 1974) pointed out the central concern of higher education organisations in
the 1970s has been to provide quality education for minimal amount of expenses by
focusing on efficiency, as a means of financial regulation.

3.2.3.3 Assessing Organisational Effectiveness

Different approaches have been used to define organisational effectiveness,
and establish the best criteria for measuring organisational effectiveness. (Cameron
& Whetten, 1983) argued that various approaches to measure organisational
effectiveness are products of different arbitrary models developed for different
organisations. The reason being that a definite construct space of effectiveness has
never been bounded and that effectiveness remains a product of individual values
and preferences. Thus, for these reasons, one single criterion, which could be
considered as the best for assessing effectiveness, has not yet been identified. Also,
all the factors which can be considered as relevant to organisational effectiveness
have not been identified, as these keep changing from one organisation to another,
depending on different cultural, social, and economic factors. The different
approaches that have been employed from different conceptualisations of
organisational effectiveness will be taken into consideration when developing an
approach for this particular study. Amongst the different approaches, each approach
has distinct advantages as a research and theoretical tool, but at the same time each
of them has certain weakness as well (Cameron, 1981). As each of the models to be
considered are analytically independent, a certain approach might be appropriate for
particular circumstance, while for certain types of organisations, some approaches
might not be valid depending on the different variables which are taken into
consideration in a particular approach. A major consideration while choosing a model
most appropriate in assessing effectiveness is the domain of activity in which an
organisation operates. As an example, the strategic constituencies approach might
be best applicable to assessing effectiveness for an organisation operating in
multiple domains, where outcomes might be obscure, or where the organisation is
required to respond to a diverse group of constituency demands. Whereas, the goal
model is inappropriate in cases where the organisational domain is narrowly defined,
with goals being consensual and outcomes being easily identifiable.
In relation to the statement discussed above, organisational domains refer to
the population served, the technology employed, and the services rendered by an
organisation (Meyer, 1975). These domains arise as per choices made by dominant
members concerning activities that ought to be emphasized, and the evaluation
criteria that are agreed upon amongst the dominant members. Organisations

frequently operate in multiple domains, but only very few organisations are able to
maximize organisational effectiveness in their entire domain. In the case of higher
education organisations, which are under consideration for this particular study,
these domains stretch from students, to the educational services being provided and
the technology, which is employed in delivering those services.
One of the most widely used models for measuring organisational effectiveness
is the goal model (which includes operative and official goals), defining effectiveness
as the extent to which an organisation accomplishes its set goals and objectives
(Scott, 1977). For the higher education organisations being considered in this study,
these goals could include the educational qualifications being provided as per certain
standards, or the financial goals, which need to be accomplished to achieve the
academic standards. However, there are certain weaknesses of the goal model.
Such as, the model, which focuses on set goals, might mean the organisation is
focused on a narrow domain, or an organisation could be judged effective in areas
outside its goal domain. Also, an organisation might be ineffective in its overall
growth if the goals to accomplish are set too low, are misplaced, or turn out to be
harmful in the long run, due to unforeseeable circumstances (Cameron, 1981).
Another approach, which can be used to measure organisational effectiveness,
is the System Resource Model, which focuses on the ability of an organisation to
obtain the necessary resources. In the case of this approach the focus is on the
resources being put into an organisation rather than on the results. Therefore,
essentially input replaces output as the primary consideration (Yuchtman &
Seashore, 1967). But this is not a foolproof approach, as it could well happen that
organisations might prove to be effective even when the inputs are not optimal.
Furthermore, (Molnar & Rogers, 1976) suggest that in nonprofit organisations, which
are close equivalents of certain higher education organisations such as public
universities, the acquisition of inputs is not tied to the production of outputs.
Consequently, resource acquisition (inputs) cannot be solely used as a legitimate
criterion to measure organisational effectiveness. Thus, the effective organisation of
resources does not guarantee the effective usage of the resources in an
organisation.
A third approach which is used to measure organisational effectiveness is the

Process Model, wherein effectiveness is equated with internal organisational health,

efficiency, or well-oiled internal processes and procedure. (Likert, 1967) represents
the set of researchers that are in agreement with this approach towards measuring
organisational effectiveness. Therefore, the focus in this model is on processes and
procedures rather than on external environment and setting of goals. However, there
is no guarantee that an organisation can only be deemed as effective when
organisational health is perfect and internal process run smoothly. Moreover, in
turbulent external environments, the presence of organisational slack (unused,
convertible resources) might indicate inefficiency in internal process while being
essential for the long-term health of an organisation.
The final approach in consideration is what is known as the Ecological Model
(Miles, 1980), or the Participant Satisfaction Model (Keeley, 1978). In this particular
approach, organisational effectiveness is defined in terms of the degree to which
needs and expectations of participating strategic constituencies are met by the
organisation under consideration. Another way of stating the criterion is suggested
by Keeley, as the minimization of regret. There are different ways in which this
approach can be viewed, either as a summary measure for an organisation, i.e. the
minimal satisfaction level for all comprising constituencies, or as a series of different
scores from a variety of constituencies, i.e. the point at which score variance
becomes

critical. The

participant

satisfaction

model

places

emphasis

on

constituencies outside the organisation as well, and the organisation, which is

considered the most effective, is the one that at least minimally satisfies, or reduces
the regret of these major strategic constituencies, as emphasized by Keeley.
3.2.3.4 Assessing Effectiveness in Education Sector
In the case of higher education organisations, due to the problem of ambiguity
and diffuseness of goals, both objective and perceptual criteria need to be obtained
from institutions of higher education, and anonymity be granted to both institutions
and individuals in an attempt to reduce defensiveness and reporting bias. The
criteria for measuring organisational effectiveness, needs to be suited to higher
education institutions rather than be common to the universal criteria as applicable to
generic organisations in the field of management. The generality of criteria often
resulting as a consequence of a universalistic approach as contrary to the

uniqueness of organisational features of higher education institutions made this

choice reasonable, as there is no precedent for criteria of effectiveness in institutions
of higher education (Cameron, 1978).

The anatomy of autonomy. (2007). Higher Education Policy, 20(3), 219221.

Anderson, J. A. (2006). Leadership, personality and effectiveness. The
journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 1078-1091.
Ashworth, Boyne, & Delbridge. (2009). Escape from the Iron Cage?
Organizational Change and Isomorphic Pressures in the Public
Sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1),
165.
Aydelotte, M. K. (1983). Professional nursing: The drive for governance. In
N. L. Chaska (Ed.), The nursing profession: A time to speak (pp. 830843). New York: McGraw-Hill
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.
Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Berka, W. (2000). The legal and philosophical meaning of autonomy in
education. In W. Berka, J. D. Groff & H. Penneman (Eds.), Autonomy
in education: Yearbook of the European Association for Educational
Law and Policy (pp. 3-10). The Hague: Kluwer Law International
Brock, D. M. (2003). Autonomy of individuals and organizations: Towards a
strategy research agenda. International journal of bussiness and
economics, 2(1), 57-73.
Cameron, K. (1978). Measuring organisational effectiveness in institutions
of
higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4),
604-632.
Cameron, K. (1986). A study of organisational effectiveness and its
predictors. Management Science, 32(1), 87-112.
Cameron, K. S. (1981). Domains of organisational effectiveness in colleges
and universities. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(1), 2547.
Cameron, K. S., & Whetten, D. A. (1983). Organisational Effectiveness: a
comparison of multiple models. New York: Academic Press.
Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and
institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. The
Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 43-56.

Datta, D. K., Grant, J., & Rajagopalan, N. (1991). Management

incompatibility and postacquisition autonomy: Effects on acquisition
performance. In P. Shrivastava, A. Huff & J. Dutton (Eds.), Advances
in strategic management (Vol. 7, pp. 157-182). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press
Dayani, E. (1990). Professional and economic self-governence in nursing.
In E. C. Hein & M. J. Nicholson (Eds.), Contemporary leadership (pp.
357-362). Boston: Little, Brown
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.
Dressler, S. (2004). Strategy, organization and performance management:
From basics to best practices. Florida: Boca Raton.
Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public
sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 14(3), 283.
Glenn, C. (2000). The concept of educational autonomy. In W. Berka, J. D.
Groff & H. Penneman (Eds.), Autonomy in education: Yearbook of the
European Association for Educational Law and Policy (pp. 11-20).
The Hague: Kluwer Law International
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. (1996). Understanding radical organizational
change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism.
Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022-1054.
Harris, H., & Holden, L. (2001). Between autonomy and control:
Expratriate management and strategic IHRM in SMEs. Thunderbird
International Business Review, 43, 77-101.
Hutchins, R. M. (1977). Interview with Robert Maynard Hutchins. Chronicle
of Higher Education, 14, 5.
Keeley, M. A. (1978). A social justice approach to organisational
evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 272-292.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organisation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organisations.
Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
Meeth, R. L. (1974). Quality education for less money. San Francisco:
Jossey- Bass.
Meyer, M. W. (1975). Organisational domains. American Sociological
Review, 40, 599-615.
Miles, R. H. (1980). Macro-organisational behaviour. Santa Monica,
California: Goodyear.
Molnar, J. J., & Rogers, D. C. (1976). Organisational effectiveness: an
empirical comparison of the goal and system resource approaches.
Sociological Quarterly, 17, 401-413.
Mora, J.-G. s. (2001). Governance and management in the new university.
Tertiary Education and Management, 7(2), 95 - 110.
Ostwald, M. (1982). Autonomia its genesis and early history. Chico, CA:
scholars.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in
organizational analysis. Chicago: The university of Chicago press.

Salaman, G., & Asch, D. (2003). Strategy and capacity: Sustaining

organizational change. United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Scott, W. (1977). Effectiveness of organisational effectiveness studies. In
S. Goodman & J. M. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on
organisational effectiveness (pp. 63-95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Steers, R. M. (1975). Problems in measurement of organizational
effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 546-558.
Susman, G. I. (1976). Autonomy at work. New York: Praeger.
Volkwein, J. F. (1986a). State financial control of public universities and its
relationship to campus administrative elaborateness and
cost : Result of a national study. Review of Higher Education, 9(3),
267-286.
Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S. (1967). A system resource approach to
organisational effectiveness. American Sociological Review,
32, 891-903.

A Posthuma, R. (2009). National culture and union membership: A culturalcognitive perspective. Relations industrielles, 64(3)
Ashworth, Boyne, & Delbridge. (2007). Escape from the Iron Cage?
Organizational Change and Isomorphic Pressures in the Public
Sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1),
165.
Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and
institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. The
Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 43-56.
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.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The new institutionalism in
organizational analysis: University of Chicago Press Chicago.
Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public
sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 14(3), 283.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. (1996). Understanding radical organizational
change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism.
Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022-1054.
Hanson, E. M. (2006). Strategies of educational decentralization: key
questions and core issues. In C. Bjork (Ed.), Educational
decentralization: Asian experiences and conceptual contributions
(pp. 9-26). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kraatz, M. S., & Zajac, E. J. (1996). Exploring the limits of the new
institutionalism: The causes and consequences of illegitimate
organizational change. American Sociological Review, 61(5), 812836.
Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical
research program. Great minds in management: The process of
theory development, 460-484.

Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and Interests

(3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P. J., & Caronna, C. A. (2000). Institutional
change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance
to managed care: University of Chicago Press.
Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual review
of sociology, 13, 443-464.