Strategic Manag Uni Institutional Development

8/8/2019 Strategic Manag Uni Institutional Development

1/36


2/36


3/36


4/36


5/36


6/36


7/36


8/36


9/36


10/36


11/36


12/36


13/36

the collegial mode often dominates as part of the academic heartland of the university.

Leaders attempting to introduce strategic or quality initiatives usually encounter difficulties

linked especially to cultures with a heavycollegial emphasis, eg.:

1. A tendency to avoid problems. This maybe explained by the individualistic cultureswhich generally respect individual academicsovereignty for teaching and research; more-over, the development of highly specialistareas of knowledge may also limit challengeor learning from other perspectives, andinduce reward structures based on the indi-vidual rather than the group. The reluctanceto confront difficult issues may be linked tosheer cowardice! In a strategic managementsetting, the practical consequences of avoid-ance are defensiveness, isolationism, non-accountability and fragmented information,which makes quality-oriented processesproblematical to install.

2. When quality assurance is initiated as a for-mal process, it is normally a top-down activ-ity, fuelled by external accountability or finan-

cial reduction, requiring crisis management.Traditions of low corporate identity will createtension and defensiveness that are reflectedin non-compliance with quality processes.This translates into a reluctance to admiterrors and to be self-critical, information thenbeing passed upwards in a substantiallyunfiltered manner.

3. The fact that many universities are publicand tied to state higher education bureaucra-cies could also lead to prevalence of the rule-book and maintenance-oriented procedures.This may be encouraged by fragmentedinformation flows designed for externalaccountability purposes, as well as by limitedplanning horizons, or a separation betweenplanning and evaluative processes all of which do not help sustain quality processesin the sense outlined by Tabatoni.

4. It is also common to find barriers to thesustainability of a quality culture in the feed-

back/evaluative process itself. This process isoften ambiguous (apart from some simpleperformance indicators) in terms of objective

measures. Arrival at commonly acceptedinterpretation of terms and reality may beproblematic owing to the different agendas,interests and behaviours of the various actors.There may also be lengthy delays in the feed-

back, particularly for impact measures, whichrender short-term adjustments hazardouswhen contexts alter; such delays are problem-atical for consensus building.

5. A barrier exists between academic andadministrative staff, which is not simply hier-archical, but may reflect fundamental differ-ences in values and operating styles, all themore so as the two groups draw on differentknowledge bases. Each version of so-calledreality is only partial. Filtering out of dataoccurs on both sides and differentially sothat the debate on quality and evaluationissues may take place from quite differentstandpoints. However, the tendency points tosome managerial discipline being imposed ona hitherto highly collegial culture, as a resultof the changing role of rectors, vice-rectorsand deans. In fact, these senior officers areoften caught in a personal paradox: are theyadministrators or academics? Especially in thecase of deans, are they part of senior manage-

ment, (with what is implied in terms of collec-tive responsibility for strategic decisions) or part, not to say leaders, of a devolved collegialstructure? They may find extreme difficulty incoping with the demands and role expecta-tions of the rectorate, on the one hand, and of their faculty colleagues on the other.

6. Different disciplines also display differentoperating assumptions, beliefs and modes of behaviour, which clearly influence the way of understanding issues, approaches to decision-making, and means of intervening in com-plex issues.

7. Furthermore, many rectors and universityleaders have had at their disposal an ambigu-ous set of instruments of organisationalchange, and this clearly affects the possibilityof implementing desired quality strategies.

We shall return to this later.

One might thus conclude that, by and large,

existing institutional cultures are not con-ducive to the sustainability of systematicstrategic and quality activities, in particular

13


14/36

when they appear natural and inevitable, andcan be defended as part of academic freedomagainst arbitrary executive action, as anincentive to individual creativity within theacademic community. However, operating

cultures in universities are shifting from aheavy emphasis towards the bureaucratic andcollegial aspects to an entrepreneurial andcorporate orientation. This should result in a

greater concentration on strategic, university-wide thinking (usually prompted by externalconstraints): serious discussion may developon the extent of devolved authority neededto realise strategic purposes in ways best

suited to the devolved unit (faculty) and itsexternal constituencies; that evolution oftenleads to use of resource incentives anddevolved budgeting.

EMERGING CULTURESCONDUCIVE TO

STRATEGIC, QUALITY-RELATED ENDEAVOURS

14

1. A learning organisation being naturallyadaptive, self-reflexive, and self-critical atstrategic and operational levels, a learninguniversity should display a strong ability toidentify, confront and resolve problems; itmeans recognising its weaknesses, collectivelyand singly, and acting accordingly; it impliesalso to use internal competitiveness and com-parisons transparently and constructively, aswell as a readiness to account for perfor-mance. Such features are not obvious inEUA quality reviews: therefore, institutionsreviewed have not often developed staff appraisal and development processes.

2. Transformation should then be groundedin the experimentation and tolerance of error as a counterbalance to stability and

predictability. Such a non-punitive ethosimplies transparency, openness and frank-ness, not only in leadership style, but also inthe incentives and support systems of insti-tutional change. It encourages conscious risktaking, i.e., the capacity to prepare for theunexpected.

3. An adaptive university is thus able tomake choices openly and systematically bydetermining clear measurable objectivesgenerated through consensus and commit-ment. Not an easy task for leaders facing adilemma difficult to resolve: how to balancedemocratic procedures against executivepower, as consensus does not automaticallyarise out of strategic thinking or vice-versa.

4. Flexibility is therefore essential, i.e., thewillingness of leaders at various levels to testthe legitimacy, relevance and robustness of rules and regulations: this could mean allow-ing space for a dean or an entrepreneurial

professor to contest the administration, or for a rector to question a national agency, with agood chance of being heard.

5. Hence, the creation of consciouslydesigned feedback loops is important to turnexperiments and initiatives into learning,spreading information on good practicethroughout the institution, and providingshort turn-around time for the use of evalua-tion results. Cross-university/cross disciplinelinkages are not, however, so common inmany universities, where rigid demarcationsbetween faculties still represent a major con-straint to multi-disciplinary approaches notto speak of simply learning about other facul-ties! Therefore, building what James calls acollective IQ is not always evident.

6. Since organisational change in universities,to be thorough, must occur way down in theorganisation, the basic academic unit the

department or its equivalent is the key tocultural transformation. Recognising tradi-tional autonomy is one thing, but it will never stimulate a quality or strategic culture in theinstitution unless team performance isrewarded as much as individual results. Inother words, a collective approach to qualityexercises remains a prerequisite for institu-tional change.

7. Structural experimentation, therefore,characterises an emerging culture of trans-

formation in which formal and former struc-tures are no longer considered adequate tonew purposes when the institution needs tocope with different external stakeholders,each with a different agenda, in terms of service requirements and time frames (for continuing education, technology transfer,

franchising, co-operative education, inde-pendent study, and e-learning, to mention a

few fields for concerted change). The differ-entiation of demand requires a diversifica-

tion of organisational patterns, both in inter- faces with the environment and in internaloperations. Tensions, contradictions and


15/36

paradoxes can then be accommodatedwithin an institution through purpose-builtstructures and personnel arrangements for different organisational objectives and prior-ities. Universities, however, run the risk that

a wide spectrum of objectives will affecttheir sense of identity, all the more so whenthey depend on simple linear organisationstructures, based on historic roles and

functions.

In order to support an overall institutionalspecificity, one would not only expect differen-tiated structures, but also conscious experi-mentation monitored from the centre, thusdeveloping a structured process of organisa-

tional learning based on shared evaluation cri-teria, on accepted assessment modalities, andon a clear understanding of the identity andmotives of the reviewers. In short, the univer-sity must be able to learn from its experiments.

MATURATION OFSTRATEGIC,

QUALITY-ORIENTEDINSTITUTIONAL CULTURES

15

Pierre Tabatoni pleads for a greater sophisti-cation in strategic thinking and management,using inter alia openness and transparency,credibility, collective education and innova-tion. Developing such elements for strategicmanagement and quality assurance requires arelatively slow process of maturation if univer-sities are to cope with the many tensions for change inside and outside. Maturity is not aninstantaneous process, and its evolution maybe discerned as follows:

1. First, interpersonal and intergroup under-standing should evolve both within universi-ties and between university personnel andexternal stakeholders. The 1998 CRE studyanalysing the dialogue of universities with

their regional stakeholders pointed to fivestages in the development of effective andmature working relationships ( see Figure 1,p.16) that cannot be short-circuited. Theprocess is both intuitive and interactive. Thesame considerations apply in creating maturerelationships internally. The contention here isthat tensions and contradictions often reflectmisunderstanding or lack of information aswell as genuinely held beliefs. A sense of theevolution of dialogue towards trust andrespect of the other is an intrinsic part of thedialectic to which Tabatoni refers.

2. The evolution towards maturity in strategicand quality domains is partly related to thedegree of importance given to activities inboth fields. A low level of activity does notlead to much visibility or sense of priority,thus downgrading the sense of urgencyneeded to learn on these issues.

3. Of equal importance in the maturation of

strategic and quality cultures is the degree of systematisation adopted by the university inits approaches to new challenges, i.e., the

institutions sophistication. Does it mainlyrespond to change needs in an ad hoc dis-jointed manner, with little attempt to developrobust policy and procedural frameworks, or does it carefully attempt to design stableinstruments to guide collective behaviour,thus building on experience of good prac-tice? In the latter case, the tensions outlinedby Tabatoni have been built on and used cre-atively: in the former, the tensions will tend toparalyse lateral learning and restrict construc-tive innovation.

The dimensions of maturity outlined abovemay be portrayed diagrammatically, as in Figure 2 (see on p.16): its four different quadrantsreflect different approaches to the question.

Quadrant A: Low on importance/volume,and low on systematisation.

Quadrant B: Low on importance/volume,and high on systematisation.

Quadrant C: High on importance/volume,and low on systematisation.

Quadrant D: High on importance/volume,and high on systematisation.

These categories are broad generalisations,and, whilst at institutional level, one type maylargely predominate, elements of all four maybe recognised somewhere in the university,given the nature of the institution as anorganisation, and the cultural idiosyncrasiesof different subject disciplines.

Four strategic questions arise for the institu-tional leader when considering this typology:

(a) Which category best describes the currentposition of the institution?

(b) Are the leader and the various interest

groups in the institution satisfied with thisposition, or should there be movement toanother, more desirable, quadrant?


16/36

FIGURE 1MATURITY SPECTRUM

FOR INTER-GROUPEFFECTIVENESS

16

Ability of partici-pants to under-stand terminologyand expectations

Ability of partici-

pants to identifyand describe allrelevant elementsin interaction

Ability of partici-

pants to analyse allelements in termsof effectiveness

Ability of participantsto confront problems,criticise openly and con-structively the elements

and respective roles

Ascending levels of maturity

FIGURE 2INSTITUTIONAL

MATURITY IN RESPECTOF STRATEGIC AND

QUALITY PROCESSESLow Ad hoc High

Degree of systematisation in internal processes

High

Degree of impor-tance of strategicand quality processesand the volume of process activity

A B

C D

Excessivebureaucratisation?


17/36

(c) If the latter, to which quadrant should theinstitution move?

(d) How should the movement be stimulated,managed and achieved?

These four questions are clearly at the hub of cultural transformation. In general, we mayreasonably say that Quadrant A is probablythe weakest in terms of strategic and qualityculture, whereas Quadrant D is the strongest.

However, for many institutions, in southernand central/eastern Europe in particular,Quadrant A often represents the current loca-

tion, and, as long as the external imperativescan be reasonably accommodated, a move-ment from A to B, and then maybe to D, isprobably optimal. Quadrant C should beavoided, if possible, since the combination of

frenetic activity with uncoordinated growthsimply leads to so-called organised anarchy.Moreover, it is rather difficult to move fromC to D, assuming that the latter is a desiredposition, since the ad hoc nature of effort inC may well have become endemic andbeyond control in the institution. In other words, Quadrant C could prove to be a deadend.

TOWARDS A STRATEGICAND QUALITY-ORIENTED

CULTURE

17

To enrich a quality culture within universities,the question posed is how to move a univer-sity to a more desired position in the matrix,where quality has a higher priority, and wherestrategy is better systematised.

External factors

Various environmental factors, i.e., frame-work conditions in which institutions oper-ate, have played an important role in chang-ing attitude to strategy and quality in mostsystems and universities. They refer to the

needs of government departments (educa-tion, finance, industry and trade), statehigher education agencies (planning, fund-ing or quality), rectors conferences or peer groups of institutions or subject specialisms,industrial or commercial stakeholders (inter-ested in the nature, quality and price of services), individual consumer groups (stu-dents), research funding bodies (publiccouncils, academies and foundations), andinternational agencies. Each university issubject to various combinations of suchexternal requirements, depending on its aca-demic profile, mix of activities and particular context, and the relative weight of theseexternal demands is clearly an important

factor for the institutions possible response.For universities subject to all the above, thereconciliation and accommodation of differ-ences requires internal management skill of a high order, and considerable sensitivity toexternal agendas.

Social demand may nourish the developmentof diverse quality-oriented cultures, for instance, by

(a) requiring universities directly to operateor conform to externally designed qualityprocesses for assessing teaching andresearch, a culture of compliance ;

(b) requiring universities to develop internalprocesses which are intended to satisfybroad external criteria and benchmarks,a culture of introspection ;

(c) requiring universities to set standards for accreditation purposes, a culture of normalisation ;

(d) requiring universities to have an institu-tional strategy and transparent qualityprocesses, a culture of quality management ;

(e) requiring linkages between quality reviewsand resource allocation, directly or indi-rectly, a culture of retroactive strategies ;

(f) benchmarking university performance insuch domains as teaching, research, costeffectiveness, value for money, resourcebase, student satisfaction, incomegeneration, a culture of transparency .

Viewed as a spectrum, these various culturesrange from point (a), enslaving obedience, topoint (f), informed service.

All too often, universities replicate internallytheir approaches to external demands. Then,the internal culture is driven by outsideneeds, an understandable development given

the threats which external evaluation mayvery well pose. Such a trend becomes partic-ularly obvious when quality officers, internal


18/36

reviews, quality committees, or directors of quality abound. To meet the requirements setby some external industrial stakeholders, for instance, the university could adopt generallyrecognised commercial or public sector Total

Quality regimes, such as ISO 9000, at the riskof disagreeing with the universitys missionand vision, thus evoking new sources of tension inside the institution.

There is clearly a wide psychological spec-trum of responses by universities to the above from a highly defensive closed, even rigid,stance ready to repel perceived invaders (inwhich the admission of failure is not high oninstitutional agendas) to a welcoming stancein which the university, trusting in its owncapacities, will be frank, tolerant and open,and will use external initiative as a means of stimulating internal change.

However, whatever type of external frame-work appertains, many universities wouldnot have adopted, or moved towards astrategy and quality culture, without anexternal stimulus of some kind. The forcesof traditional academe, whilst clearlyquality-oriented, especially at lower levels

in terms of scientific relevance, have oftennot permitted a strategically oriented qual-ity culture with its own mechanisms, atinstitutional level.

Internal factors

If quality transformation often relies on exter-nal stimulation, quite a few universities haveachieved change by enhancing internal qual-ity awareness; for their rectors and senior leaders, external imperatives have becomeextra means for changing behaviour, when itbecame obvious that refusing change wouldjeopardise the institutions future. Strategicand quality processes are ideally about

(a) holding up a mirror so that the institutionand its parts are able to see themselves for what they really are, rather than cling toobsolete identity myths;

(b) providing to people at all levels within theinstitution insights about existing issues,as well as possibilities and perspectives of change;

(c) providing a vehicle for the provision of structured advice in relation to definedissues and opportunities;

(d) providing education in the ways andmeans of institutional improvement.

It might therefore be said that effectivequality processes are, in fact, exercises in thesupportive destabilisation of the status quo ,with a view to constructive transformation.The process builds on uncertainty regardingthe validity of status quo arrangements, thusstimulating an assessment of institutionalstrengths and weaknesses as far as mission,strategy, processes, role, structure andresources are concerned; this internal andcreative capability to be critical often refers

to similar phenomena in other institutions:such comparisons allow for improvement.Changes in behaviour and attitude are thedesired end-products of the exercise.

When universities move across the matrix,various activities may prove unhelpful, and,as experience indicates, should be avoided.There is no need for processes which areerratic and inconsistent, which offer exces-sively narrow and rigid perspectives, whichreflect partiality and bias, or which containheavy, costly, and time-consuming datacollection. Such processes, indeed, are likelyto deter innovation, while leading to substan-tial demotivation.

18

To develop sound quality cultures whichmove their institutions broadly in the direc-tion of Quadrant D (High Priority/System-atic), senior managers may adopt severaldistinctive leadership strategies. Thoughconceptually distinct, in terms of underlying

leadership style, they are nonetheless linkedin practice, since university leaders will usuallycombine them for effective implementation,

thus remaining sensitive to the micropoliticalmap of the university. Some university groupsmay well respond to rational approaches,others to normative educative approaches,and others to the exercise of more power-related political approaches. Considerable

flexibility and judgement of the strategiesappropriateness is thus required fromuniversity.

LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES


19/36

1. Rational approaches to the developmentof quality cultures, and the movementtowards Quadrant D, are based on theassumption that the people who inhabit uni-versities are generally rational, and will react

positively to arguments which are clearly andlogically presented, demonstrate a case, andare supported by sound and relevant data.

In this event, the quality strategy must beclear and explicit, its rationale (external andinternal) transparent, its purpose well-defined, its decision clear, and its link to insti-tutional mission obvious. A rational qualityculture calls for performance indicators whichare perceived to be relevant and appropriateto what is to be assessed, neither excessive innumber and complexity, nor overpowering interms of the paperwork which is generated.Legitimate ground rules would be expected

for the operation of the system, with accom-panying documentation and handbooks for the various parties evaluators, evaluated,and system maintainers. In addition, legiti-mate experts internal or external whosespecific reports are likely to have credibilitywith the evaluated, should fulfil the role of change agents. Finally, the whole effort must

be supported by a respected organisational framework to guide the quality endeavours, for instance an office or offices to sustain theprocess and provide assistance, as well as a

forum to discuss policy and define outcomes.

Whilst rational approaches may certainly bejustified in terms of intellectual rigour, this,per se , does not generate acceptance by theacademic community, given that the contextof their use may be fraught with financialreduction, local crises and internal micropoli-tics. It is normally wise to develop such ratio-nal instruments in a period of relative institu-tional calm, and well before they are likely tobe used for rather difficult organisational pur-poses. In this case, questions of validity andintegrity are rather less likely to arise, givingacademics less opportunities to disparage thevalidity of the proposed instruments andprocesses.

Rational approaches clearly imply highly

transparent and open procedures and a free flow of information. This is more difficult tosustain in a very turbulent environment.

2. Given the limitations of rational behaviour patterns in the academic community, forma-tive or educative approaches to strategicquality culture development can better concur to change. The underlying assumption here is

that people are likely to feel threatened bythe development of quality instruments,which could reveal personal inadequacies interms of past performance, or because their use brings insecurity and uncertainty in termsof induced change. Educative approaches arethus designed to enable academics and other staff to feel comfortable and proficient inchanged circumstances, in order to reduceresistance, alienation and the feeling of inade-quacy. Rectorate and deans can set an exam-ple by subjecting themselves to review andpersonal development initiatives. Widespreadbriefings on the reasons why qualityprocesses are needed, the likely ramificationsand consequences of their use at variouslevels, and a demonstration, in specific terms,of expected and likely positive outcomes arealso vital. If difficulties are likely to crop up,staff should be briefed on the support theycan expect when coping with change.Colleagues could be further involved in thedesign of processes, relevant structures, per-

formance indicators and databases as thisshould generate commitment and ownershipof the change process. Systematic trainingand staff development are also important tostrenghten mature approaches: external andinternal workshops for both academics andnon-academics on assessment procedurescould lead to counselling, mentoring andrelated activities, in order to provide tailor-made assistance to staff members involved ina specific area of transformation.

The rector benefits from a significant advantagedue to his/her position, i.e., a global understand-ing of all the facets of a quality issue and of aquality strategy; this gives the leaders immensescope for institutional integration and cross-refer-encing. Moreover, the rector often has advancenotice of likely external issues and strategicdevelopments, because of membership of thenational rectors conference and closeness to thenational higher education agencies; thus, univer-sity leadership should be able to prepare the

political climate of the institution for the likelybig issues looming on the horizon, or use insideinformation to create shock.

19


20/36

The educative approach is in essence a con-tinuous procedure, highly flexible to theneeds of particular groups when assistance isrequired. Therefore, considerable calls arelikely to be made on expert support from uni-

versity quality offices, from quality specialistsat faculty level, all people able to identify anddiagnose likely problem areas at an earlystage, and to provide support, remediationand follow-up. The constructive partnershipbetween rectors office, strategic planningoffice, quality office, staff developmentdepartment and deans is thus a key factor inthe evolution of a quality culture.

3. There will inevitably be occasions whenthe rational and educative approaches abovemay need to be supplemented by a third,the political or power-coercive approach .The assumption here is that, in times of organisational stress and high conflict, thedensity of institutional micro-politics is likelyto increase substantially. Even in relativelyquiet times, there will always be people whodo not respond positively to rational or educative approaches. Thus, acquiescence or compliance with university strategy may needto be achieved through other means. This is

often quite difficult in various institutional or national settings where the formal instru-ments of authority available to the rector arenot adequate when facing substantial opposi-tion from colleagues. To enlarge on rationaland educative approaches, however, politicalapproaches may encompass a number of dif-

ferent possibilities if power is to be exerted.

(a) Rectors and senior leaders may well wishto sustain change by referring to sources of executive legitimacy, the university law or charter; or to the authority delegated by theMinistry, Senate, University Council; or totheir personal job descriptions. Credibilityoften arises from a rectoral election, especiallyif it can rely on strong management struc-tures. However, this needs to be supplement-ed by personal competence, credibility andreputation, as expressed by trust and prestige(personal and scientific).

(b) The targeted use of reviews and perfor-

mance indicators on those parts of the uni-versity deemed to be in need of improve-ment, investment or remediation, and the

widespread publication of results arising arean important tactic to destabilise the status quo , and may certainly be an exercise of power. This little group of instruments canput considerable pressure on particular

groups within the institution, developingquality awareness in the area concerned, andhelping others to realise that they are notimmune from such pressure.

(c) Resulting from such a targeted use of reviews, a link with funding can also be estab-lished either within or alongside the normalbudgetary process. Funds may be awardedor withdrawn, evoking formidable incentivesto quality awareness and, progressively, to astrategic culture. That represents shock tacticin a different guise. Aggressive follow-up of change induced by a review exercise is likelyto have the same effect.

(d) To make obvious the need for change,rectors may wish to engage external review-ers coming from the stakeholders commu-nity, especially if the academic unit concernedrelies on such outside partner for business or credibility (e.g., a health authority, company,or government department).

(e) In terms of the formulation, legitimisationand acceptance of a quality strategy in the

first place, rectors may well exert their power in bartering loss and advantages amongvarious university groups, thus developingcoalitions of university interest groups whocan deliver a majority verdict for a policy; thisneeds clear steering techniques (appointmentof committee chairs and members; influenceon agenda setting; provision of documenta-tion etc.).

(f) The selection or nomination of allies to keypositions in the strategy quality process is aninstrument certainly open to rectors who, insome systems, can influence the choice of avice-rector for strategy or quality, of the direc-tor for the quality office, or even of the deans.This can help influence and condition subse-quent behaviour by academic colleagues inthe area concerned.

(g) An especially important area of concernshould be the composition and operation of the rectorate or senior management group

20


21/36

itself. Here, the important elements would be for members to share values on the qualityagendas relevant to the university, to develop

frequent contact and dialogue throughoutthe university (for instance, when deans are

part of the institutional management teams).One would expect that one member of therectorate has prime responsibility for qualitymatters as a whole, but all senior managersshould feel responsible for quality within their portfolios be it teaching and learning,research, postgraduate or continuingeducation.

It might be argued that these devices are notnecessarily power-coercive approaches per se .Nonetheless, they are tools often used to forcerather than encourage movement in a specificpart of the university. As such, their inclusionin political instruments is justified.

We have already alluded to the importanceof the dynamics of policy formation in under-standing the nature of paradoxes, utilisingthe existence of tensions to foster change.Therefore, the skill of the leader in recognis-ing and exploiting ambiguity is crucial.

Analysis shows that a policy portfolio needs

to encompass strategic directions (size, shapeand scope of the university) as well as sup-porting bread and butter policies (for cur-riculum, research, personnel, finance, busi-ness generation etc.) if it is to reinforce trustin the process of transformation, particularly

in a turbulent environment where effectivepolicy-making (in relation to the originalcrisis) tends to move through four stages:

an ambiguous stage (typified by a clarifi-

cation of the dimensions of the problemand the parameters of likely solutions, andby an identification of policy actors in aclimate of high tension and uncertainty);

a political stage (typified by a sorting outof viable policy options, by the selectionof incentives and bargains, by informality,and by a solid information base);

a legitimisation phase (typified by thetesting of solutions against criteria, bypolitical acceptability leading to commit-ment, and by formal collegial approvalprocesses);

a bureaucratisation stage completingthe maturation process and correspond-ing to implementation.

One is not insinuating in the above that rec-tors should become unbridled disciples of Machiavelli in the development of a particular type of culture. Rather, in view of the micro-politics of the academe, there is a need for political as well as intellectual leadership of a

high order. That is why institutional leadersshould develop a balanced portfolio of approaches rational, formative and political in order to move the institution to a posi-tion which is both one of high priority and anappropriate systematisation.

21

The stimulation of university cultures support-ive of strategic quality endeavours is far fromeasy, but is probably a precondition of effectivequality operations. Such stimulation usuallyneeds a kick-start from externally inspired ini-tiatives, at least if a university-wide approach isto be achieved. However, given the nature of the academic community, its beliefs and values

concerning innovative and creative research,teaching and community service, the institu-tion requires a quality-related culture thatavoids rigidity, and harnesses the enthusiasmand sense of ownership of the academe. In thisrespect, the selection by university leaders of appropriate approaches to cultural transforma-tion is clearly critical.

CONCLUSION


22/36

22

Argyris, C. and Schn, D. (1978). Organisational Learning: a Theory of Action. Perspective . Addison-Wesley.

Barnett, R. (2000). The University in an Age of Super-Complexity . Society for Research into Higher Education. Open University Press.

Becher, A. and Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories . Society for Research into Higher Education. Open University Press.

Clark, B. (1998). The Entrepreneurial University . Pergamon Press.

Davies, J. L. (1985). Personnel Policies at a Time of Financial Reduction: the Case of the StateUniversity of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo. Higher Education Management Vol. 9, No. 2. OECD.

Davies, J. L. (1985). Policy Formation in Universities: the Management Challenge . Lockwood, G. andDavies, J. L. Nelson.

Davies, J. L. (1998). The Dialogue of Universities with their Regional Stakeholders: Comparisons Between Different Regions of Europe . 11th General Assembly, Berlin. CRE (now EUA).

Duderstadt, J. (2000). A University for the Twenty-First Century . University of Michigan Press.

Duke, C. (1992). The Learning University: Towards a Paradigm . Society for Research into Higher Education. Open University Press.

Eckel, P., Green M. and Hill, B. (2001). On Change: Riding the Waves of Change : Insights fromTransforming Institutions . American Council on Education.

James, R. (2000). Quality Assurance and the Growing Puzzle of Managing OrganisationalKnowledge. Higher Education Management Vol. 12, No. 3. OECD.

McNay, I. (1995). From Collegial Academy to Academic Enterprise: The Changing Cultures of University in Schuller, T. (Ed.) The Changing University . Society for Research into Higher Education.Open University Press.

Middlehurst et al (2000). The Business of Borderless Education. Higher Education Funding Council for England, Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals (now Universities UK).

Wchter, B. (Ed) (1998). Vision 20-10: European University Leaders Perspectives on the Future . 11thGeneral Assembly, Berlin. CRE (now EUA).

REFERENCES


23/36

The management of a body is a way of

conducting collective action on the part of those responsible for it. While govern-ment and leadership are also employed,these terms tend to express the structuresof command and control, whereasmanagement describes the processes bywhich collective action is stimulated with aview to change.

The aim of any management activity is to steer

the development of a body in certain direc-tions, to co-ordinate its different initiatives tothe same end, and to ensure that its adminis-trative activities deliver the appropriate sup-port, logistic, evaluation and control services.It is essential that management and adminis-tration , which are highly interdependent, arecoherently devised and implemented.

MANAGEMENT AND

ADMINISTRATION

23

AN EXPLANATORY GLOSSARYPierre Tabatoni, Acadmie des Sciences morales et politiques

As part of the function of management, theultimate aim of policies and strategies is toguide the activities and operation of a univer-sity with respect to the transformations in itsenvironment which are observed, foreseeableor liable to result from its own innovations.These bearings or objectives apply to its activi-ties, structures, methods and operationalregulations, as well as its resources, relationsand public image. They concern the entire uni-versity when they are defined and acted on byits central bodies, or each of its decentralisedunits (faculties, departments, institutes or research centres, and services) whenever they

possess some developmental autonomy.

Policy is formulated in terms of general princi-ples regarding what to do (or not do) andhow: it comprises rules and common stan-dards which condition the long-term develop-

ment of an institution. Strategies reflect policy from an operational standpoint, defining a setof aims and associated means. They fix priori-ties and balances to be respected across differ-ent objectives. They determine precise goals,whose achievement can be measured and per-

formances evaluated. And, finally, they specifytheir time frame, allocate responsibilities andresources, organise structures and ways of working and set up evaluation exercises. Apolicy may thus give rise to several differentstrategies, all of which are compatible with itsgeneral thrust.

Policy and strategy thus engender quality cri-teria for evaluation of activities. This evalua-tion makes it possible to see how objectivesand goals are implemented and to analyseobstacles and positive factors, and may some-times lead to their reappraisal.

POLICY AND STRATEGIES

The identity of a university seeks to communi-cate the essential aspects of its different tasks, thespecific nature of its objectives and methods, andits public image. Although symbolic, identity issufficiently precise to influence subsequent strate-gic decisions and give rise to arbitration regard-ing new institutional policies. The latter express,in terms of action principles, the concreteembodiment of this identity. They also define thequality criteria that are the basis of institutionalevaluation . By this is meant the appraisal of thecapacity of the university to formulate and fur-ther general policies for change, which affect thelong-term development of the entire institution.

With the development of numerous and varied

networking activities both internally and withexternal partners, and as part of the futureinformation society, universities might gradu-

ally assume a more virtual form , in which itwould become hard to circumscribe preciselytheir activities, and structural and organisa-tional rules, indeed their very being.Ultimately, the identity of an institution wouldbe expressed mainly by rules of conductenabling the operation of networks, norms,the shared perception of a collective interest and, where possible, common policies andcommunication within and between networks rather than through strong action anddecision-making structures, regulations andcontrol mechanisms. It is to be expected thatelements of this virtual nature will becomean increasingly marked feature of the organisa-tion of universities and the university system.

When a university simply turns to experts toevaluate what it does, it implicitly adopts the

IDENTITY,INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES

AND THE VIRTUALUNIVERSITY


24/36

policies and strategies of the bodies or profes-sional milieux that these experts have chosenas their model. Indeed, its institutional policymay be to adopt a model which the expertsrecommend as good. However, this decision

has to be clear and explicit. And the variousexperts consulted who, in most cases, eval-uate specific activities (such as organisation,

finance, particular training programmes, different kinds of research and staff policies), stillhave to adopt coherent points of view amongthemselves.

The absence of formulated institutional poli-cies certainly does not mean that there arenone whatever. Often they are implicit, corre-sponding to the policies of certain bodies or influential persons who make use of thepotential of the institution for the benefit of their own particular strategies. As far as thedevelopment of the institution is concerned,the result may be good or bad, depending onthe quality of those strategies, as well as their capacity to influence for the good thosebodies and agencies that are least influential.But often this mode of management has the

effect of strengthening centres of excellenceat the expense of sectors the least able toadapt and improve the quality of their activi-ties. In the last resort, this leads to internaltension.

Naturally, these institutional policies must beadapted to the development of the environ-ment or, in other words, to changes whichhave occurred or are foreseeable in restric-tions, in the perception of new opportunities,or in appreciating the capacity for changewithin an institution, so that it may better

fulfil its responsibilities.

In our societies, in which environmentalchanges are numerous, rapid and interdepen-dent, future developments are not easilypredictable. As a result, institutional policiesare aimed above all at preparing an institu-tion for change, at ensuring their own flexibleadaptability and ability to grasp innovativeopportunities . They primarily concern theinstitutions organisation, its standards andattitudes, and its leadership relies on strategicmanagement methods.

STRATEGIC

MANAGEMENT

24

This is a particular form of management. It is

participatory, critical, forward-looking, lead-ing towards institutional policies which seekessentially to enhance the potential forchange in a university. This potential dependson skills, the principles governing the con-duct of all parties concerned, the organisationand management methods and the networkof relations and their quality.

It is directed towards complex situationsinvolving numerous and highly autonomousactors. In such situations, there is consider-able uncertainty as regards both informationand trends, which can only be forecast to alimited extent, while the evaluation of resultsencounters serious difficulties.

Thus, strategic management strives to intro-duce and sustain a capacity for adaptation,and collective learning about change at alldecision-making levels. It relies on organisa-tional methods ( behavioural norms, struc-tures, communications, rules, procedures ,

etc.), on a solid and clear commitment onthe part of administrators in new courses of action, which is an integral part of appropri-

ate methods of leadership (stimulation of

collective action). It encourages decentralisedinitiative, innovation, personal involvement,but also co-operation, the exchange of infor-mation, and network activity, with a constantconcern for quality and the widest possiblepropagation of evaluation methods and qual-ity standards.

A university and the university system are com-plex organisations. But they also include, to agreater or lesser extent, more standard situa-tions with clearly perceptible developmentaltrends, which have to be planned, programmedand organised in the classical manner.

Strategic management must be able to con-trol these two types of situation in combina-tion.

There is no standard strategic managementmodel. Each university possesses its ownform of government, structures, traditions ,experience, problems to be resolved, individ-

ual persons, means, capacity to manage and,in particular, its practice of leadership. It ischaracterised by its own management style.


25/36

Strong centralised leadership, whose authorityand know-how are fully accepted, with real staff concern for quality and good communication,can exercise innovative management in a waythat has its limits. There are also bureaucratic

management methods with little leadership, inwhich management essentially entails adminis-tration, cost supervision and sound program-ming of the implementation of decisions, andthe conduct of operations according to therules, etc. Such methods may suit certain situa-tions. But forces for change may then come

from outside an institution (external reforms and

regulations, limitation of means, competition,centrifugal movements of staff or resources,or the arrival of influential new staff, etc.).

The level of participation and initiative of

members in the formulation and achievementof policies is also specific. Traditions and lead-ership play a central part in them.

Despite the highly specific nature of strategicmanagement, it may be considered to possessgeneral principles which are the subject of thisdocument.

STRATEGICMANAGEMENT AND

COACHING

25

To lead , in the strict sense of the term, is tobring to bear a particular line of actionthrough organisational, resourceful and super-visory means aimed at achieving objectiveslaid down by the management bodies. But in abody as varied and fragmented as a university,the different management units (boards, man-agers, etc.) strive to engage in coaching , bymeans of a participatory management sys-tem in which discussion makes for agreement,in line with experience, on the nature of thedevelopmental problems to be resolved, aswell as on appropriate strategic methods, andgroups of objectives, goals and means which

arise from them.

The real vectors of strategic practice are, then,the behavioural norms , the richness and

effectiveness of internal and external com-munication and the quality of discussions,rather than plans, structures and regulationswhich are part of the administration of activi-ties and persons.

Coaching therefore entails methods of collective orientation which are devised andcarried out with a constant eye to possibledivergences from the aims, the very validityof the latter and the suitability of the means.There is simultaneous concern also for pro-moting the quality of activities through prop-agation of a quality culture, the nurturing of

responsibility among the greatest possiblenumber of actors, encouragement of initia-tive and innovation and the spread of goodpractice.

To adopt now the most current expression,coaching practices at the heart of strategic man-agement seek to strengthen the nature of a uni-versity as a learning organisation . This termrefers to an organisation capable of establishinga collective memory vis--vis its innovations, andof learning to change on the basis of its ownexperience or that of partners or competitors.The expression collective learning withregard to change may also be coined.

Clearly, a university is by definition a learningorganisation. All its members, teaching staff and students or partners are part of a broadcommunity of specialists in their disciplines or professional expertise who are ceaselesslyreshaping their knowledge and exchangingexperience via their publications and meetings.

However, the move from knowledge possessedby individuals to that of a collective entity is

not straightforward. The information compris-ing it is still specialist, in the domain of experts, and is linked to the play of power andinfluence or, in other words, to the highlycompartmentalised strategies of the differentparties possessing it. Neither is it made upsolely of firmly recorded and clearly structureddata that are easily transferable. In fact, it isonly fully accessible in the complex context of experience, expertise, know-how and, aboveall, the practice of collective action.

There are other forms of knowledge thanscientific or academic expertise. They includeexperience of teaching innovations, workingmethods in co-operation and exchange net-works, the development of relations, methodsof organisation and management, etc.

Furthermore, communication is not neutral,but a participatory exchange in which subjec-tive, cultural and even social factors associated

COLLECTIVE LEARNINGWITH REGARD TO

CHANGE


26/36


27/36

Here, however, another paradox has to beovercome, since structures have to be wellestablished in order to be useful as opera-tional and communications networks.They are often strengthened by an asso-

ciated culture and by working norms andrelations compatible with them. But, in astructural framework, different culturesare conceivable, with modes of operationand relations between those concerned

which make for greater adaptation, includ-ing changes in the structures themselves.

Furthermore, there always exist informal struc-tures which may be more flexible or, on the

contrary, more rigid, and work within networksoften results in the setting up of a matrix-styleorganisation, in which individual actors maybe related to different structures, depending onthe activities for which they are responsible.

RATIONALISATION,INNOVATION,

PRESERVATION

27

The methods of strategic management seekto oblige the different individuals and agen-cies involved in university strategies to appro-priately combine the three components of any strategy for change, namely strategies for rationalisation , strategies for innovation andstrategies for conservation .

Rationalising means implementing definedobjectives with optimal efficiency. Reductionof unitary costs is the most classical form theytake, at least when it is possible to define newand more productive methods, or to expandthe scale of operations with existing means(for example, a greater number of students,or a reduction in the teacher/student ratio).

A policy of rationalisation is always necessary

when changes seem inevitable, since itreleases resources which may be earmarked

for innovation. However, efficiency cannot bemeasured solely in terms of cost since qualityis at stake.

Innovation in the nature of the service sup-plied, or in the processes which enable it tobe so, is frequently the means to rationalisean activity, making it more efficient andenhancing its quality, but at a higher devel-opment cost. However, it often entails newresponsibilities related to conception, andthen development. Therefore, there is alwaysa measure of arbitration between rationalisa-tion and innovation, and these strategies arerarely dissociated.

Conserving or preserving is also frequently anessential requirement in change. Intense andrapid rationalisation through cost reductionmay certainly prompt compensatory innova-tions. Indeed, this is one of the expectedreactions in policies for reduced financial sup-port which often accompany basic reforms.But when the quality of services does notsuffer, it may be because the contractualor conditional modes of funding have beenincreased, with specific costs in terms of academic independence.

In short, rationalisation, innovation and conser-vation are linked in paradoxical interdependentrelations. Only a clear, coherent and conse-quential institutional policy in strategic man-

agement practice can lead to a dynamic equi-librium between the three dimensions of change. The exercise is all the more difficult inthat the consequences of processes of rationali-sation and innovation on the preservation of certain characteristics may be difficult to envis-age or foresee, and hard to control too in their cumulative development. Moreover, in phasesof important and rapid change, there is a fre-quent tendency to underestimate their long-lasting effects on the attitudes, norms andmodes of operation necessary to preserve thevalues, know-how, relations and a publicimage, which are part of the potential for development. From this standpoint, strategicmanagement must be constantly on the alertand ready to redirect its goals and means.

By definition, participatory, strategic manage-ment relies considerably on jointly conductedprocesses, with a view to resolving theinevitable conflicts associated with change.The term consensus strategy can be used

when the diversity of interests and points of view does not threaten the identity of institu-tions. The aim of the joint effort and negotia-

tion is thus to reduce differences and find asolution in the general interest. At the outset,the essential phase is for leaders to makeapparent, understand, and if possible admit,the need for change, to identify clearly its

forms and to make credible, for the mostinfluential at least, the idea that this change ispossible and will be profitable. This is the way

STRATEGICMANAGEMENT MODELS


28/36

to establish a climate of confidence, withoutwhich the cultural and organisational cost of the change may be prohibitive.

A flexible model . The complexity and uncer-

tainty which reigns over problems and solu-tions in strategic practices, the need to learnjointly through experience, the action of amultiplicity of interdependent processes, thedivergent values, motivations, interests andinfluences of everyone involved, the fact thatuniversity statutes often provide for electedrepresentatives, are the factors that put a pre-mium on adaptive logic. Partial, acceptableand promising changes, lead on to otherswithin the framework of general inspirationregarding change, which becomes clearer insuccessive stages.

The task of leadership, therefore, is both totransmit this general inspiration as regardsaction, and to prepare through negotiationthe acceptance of what are often compro-mise solutions enabling its concrete conver-sion into particular strategies; then, toencourage the transfer of new ideas andpractices from one sector to the other. Witha view to ensuring maximum credibility for

change and fresh inspiration, leaders thustake the time to choose innovations that havethe best chance of being accepted, achiev-able and transferable. These are so-calledadaptive strategies, entirely consistent withthe hypotheses of bounded rationalityproposed by H. Simons.

Proactive model . But to ensure the credibilityof strategic management essential to its prac-tice, leaders may have rapidly to introducenew strong policies which set the tone for the

fresh inspiration regarding the action theyintend to promote. Such is the case, for instance, with far-reaching reforms in organisa-tion, programmes, recruitment, funding, or

where there is a change of leadership at thetop, or where new strategic limitations pointto a rapid and radical reaction. One exampleof this might be a sudden major reduction in

financial support. Firm and fast action is there-

fore necessary so that at least the idea of newstrategic scenarios is rapidly communicated,while the expectations and different perspec-tives of all concerned are modified. At thesame time, there is reorganisation and a redis-tribution of responsibilities and resources.

Paradoxical strategies . Mention has alreadybeen made of paradoxical situations in 74and 75. At the outset, there is no search for compromises. Here are contradictions whichprovoke confrontation, initiating a new para-doxical scenario. This modus operandi presup-poses vigorous and efficient leadership.

Although leaders may open their new visionto wide debate, they do not attempt to settlecontradictions through joint effort at the out-set, for fear of weakening in initial compro-mises the new action principles they wish toimplement. On the contrary, they revealthem clearly in the initial procedures, relyingon subsequent debate and on proceduresthat will have to resolve these inconsistencies

to launch the impetus for collective change. Itis clear that this kind of strategy can only beachieved in circumstances in which the need

for change cannot be contested or over-looked long, and where the leaders of theinstitution concerned have the necessaryauthority, ability and influence to make the newideas credible, if not immediately acceptable.

Here, one may refer to a paradoxical strategyas a way of prompting the emergence of anew vision and meaning and, therefore, a

fresh inspiration. It is through strategic man-agement that these paradoxes can behandled, while developing a new strategicpractice through collective action.

STRONG AND SIMPLESTRATEGIES

28

The need for strong simple strategies capableof mobilising and committing the most activeinterested parties around new principles of col-lective action: this is the true test of leadership.

The choice of a method of strategic manage-

ment is always specific to each case. But inall cases, policies and strategies have to bedefined and conducted. Whatever the com-plexity of the situation, a strategy, which is

the expression of a new vision, is a collectionof new principles and highly significant actioncriteria. All must be as simple and clearlyexpressed as possible, in order to be easilycommunicated and, also, to release initiativesand give rise to new norms. In this sense, any

strategy is cultural and normative, drawingadmittedly on certain existent norms whichpermit its inception, but carrying new normswithin it.


29/36

Le management dun organisme est un

mode de conduite de laction collective par les responsables. On parle aussi de gouver-nement, de direction, mais ces termesexpriment plutt les structures de commande-ment et de contrle alors que le termemanagement dcrit des processus danima-tion de laction collective en vue du change-ment.

Toute activit de management a pour but

dorienter le dveloppement dun organismedans certaines directions, de coordonner lesdiverses activits dans ce but et de sassurer que les activits administratives fournissentles services de soutien, de logistique, dva-luation et de contrle. Il est essentiel quemanagement et administration , qui sont

fortement interdpendants, soient conus etmis en oeuvre de manire cohrente.

MANAGEMENT ET

ADMINISTRATION

29

GLOSSAIRE RAISONNPierre Tabatoni, Acadmie des Sciences morales et politiques

POLITIQUES ETSTRATGIES

Dans le cadre de la fonction de management,politiques et stratgies ont pour objet dorien-ter terme les activits et le fonctionnementde luniversit en fonction des transforma-tions de son environnement , observes ouprvisibles, ou qui pourraient rsulter de sespropres novations. Ces orientations, ou objec-tifs, sappliquent ses activits, ses structures,ses mthodes et rgles de fonctionnement, sesressources, ses relations, son image publique.Elles concernent luniversit dans sonensemble, lorsquelles sont dfinies et suiviespar ses organes centraux, ou chacun de ses

organes dcentraliss (facults, dpartements,instituts et centres de recherche, services),lorsquils disposent dune certaine autonomiede dveloppement.

Les politiques sont formules sous forme deprincipes gnraux de faire, ou de ne pas

faire, et comment faire; elles expriment desrgles, des normes communes qui orientent

le dveloppement terme de linstitution. Lesstratgies traduisent une politique de faonoprationnelle, dfinissant un ensemble dob-jectifs et de moyens associs. Elles fixent despriorits et des quilibres prserver entredivers objectifs. Elles dterminent des butsprcis dont la ralisation est mesurable et lesperformances sont valuables. Elles prcisentles dlais, affectent des responsabilits et desressources, organisent des structures et desmodes de travail, mettent en place les valua-tions. Une politique peut ainsi donner lieu plusieurs stratgies diffrentes mais qui sont

toutes compatibles avec ses orientationsgnrales.

Politiques et stratgies fournissent les critresde qualit pour valuer les activits. Cettevaluation permet dapprcier comment lesobjectifs et buts sont mis en oeuvre, danalyser les obstacles et les facteurs positifs et conduitventuellement les remettre en cause.

IDENTIT, POLITIQUESINSTITUTIONNELLES,

UNIVERSIT VIRTUELLE

Lidentit dune universit vise communi-quer lessentiel de ses missions, la spcificit deses objectifs et mthodes, son image publique.Elle est symbolique mais suffisamment prcisepour orienter des choix stratgiques ultrieurs,inspirer des arbitrages entre de nouvelles poli-tiques de linstitution. Ces dernires expri-ment, en principes daction, la significationconcrte de cette identit. Elles dfinissentainsi les critres de qualit qui servent de base lvaluation institutionnelle . On entend par l lapprciation de la capacit de luniversitde formuler et conduire des politiques gn-

rales de changement, politiques qui affectentle dveloppement terme de linstitution dansson ensemble.

Avec le dveloppement des activits enrseaux multiples et divers, aussi bien en sonsein quavec des partenaires extrieurs, l'uni-versit, dans le cadre de la future socit din-

formation, pourrait tendre vers une forme vir-tuelle o la localisation des activits, les rglesde structure et dorganisation, en bref les fron-tires de luniversit deviendraient floues. A lalimite, lidentit de linstitution sexprimeraitsurtout par des rgles de conduite permettantle fonctionnement des rseaux, des normes, lesens partag dun intrt collectif, ventuelle-ment aussi par des politiques communes et

des communications intra ou inter-rseaux,plutt que par de fortes structures dactivitset de dcisions ou par des rglementations et


30/36

contrles. On peut sattendre ce que deslments de virtualit soient de plus en plusprsents dans lorganisation des universits etdu systme universitaire.

Lorsque luniversit sen remet simplement des experts pour valuer ce quelle fait, elleadopte, implicitement , les politiques et lesstratgies des organismes ou des milieux pro-

fessionnels que ces experts ont pris pour modle. Sa politique institutionnelle peut trealors l'adaptation d'un modle qui a bonnerputation, telle que la recommandent lesexperts. Encore faut-il que ce choix soit clair et explicite et que les divers experts consults,qui valuent le plus souvent des activits sp-cifiques (organisation, finance, programmesparticuliers de formation, types de recherches,politiques de personnels...), adoptent despoints de vue cohrents entre eux!

Labsence de politiques institutionnelles for-mules ne signifie nullement quil ny en aitaucune. Souvent elles sont implicites et cor-respondent aux politiques de certains desorganes ou personnes influentes qui, de fait,utilisent au profit de leurs stratgies particu-lires le potentiel de linstitution. Le rsultat

pour le dveloppement de linstitution peut

tre bon ou mauvais, selon la qualit des stra-tgies particulires, et selon leur capacitdinfluencer dans le bon sens les organes etacteurs les moins influents. Mais souvent cemode de management revient renforcer des

centres dexcellence au dtriment des sec-teurs les moins aptes s'adapter et amlio-rer la qualit de leurs activits et il finit par tre source de tensions internes.

Bien entendu, ces politiques institutionnellesdoivent tre adaptes l volution de lenvi-ronnement , cest--dire aux changementsintervenus, ou prvisibles dans les contraintes,ou dans la perception dopportunits nou-velles, ou dans lapprciation des capacits dechangement de linstitution, toujours en vuede mieux remplir ses missions.

Dans nos socits o les changements danslenvironnement sont nombreux, rapides etinterdpendants, le futur nest pas aismentprvisible. Les politiques institutionnellesvisent alors surtout prparer linstitution changer, sadapter en souplesse, savoir saisir des occasions innovatrices . Ellesconcernent surtout son organisation, sesnormes et mentalits, et son leadership relve

de mthodes de management stratgique.

MANAGEMENTSTRATGIQUE

30

Cest une forme particulire de management.Il est participatif, critique, prospectif, condui-sant des politiques institutionnelles quivisent essentiellement accrotre le potentielde changement dans luniversit: ce poten-tiel dpend des comptences, des normes decomportement des acteurs, de lorganisationet des mthodes de management, du rseaudes relations et de leur qualit.

Il sapplique des situations complexes ooprent de nombreux acteurs disposantdune forte autonomie, o lincertitude delinformation et lincertitude sur les volutionsest importante, o, par consquent, la prvisi-bilit est limite et o lvaluation des rsul-tats rencontre de srieuses difficults.

Aussi le management stratgique sefforce-t-ildinstaurer et dentretenir une capacitdadaptation, un apprentissage collectif du

changement tous les niveaux de dcision.Il repose sur des mthodes dorganisation(normes de comportement, structures,

communications, rgles, procdures ) sur un ferme et vident engagement des responsa-bles dans des voies nouvelles, un engagementqui sinsre dans des mthodes de leadershipappropries (animation de laction collective).Il favorise linitiative dcentralise, linnovation,limplication personnelle mais aussi la coopra-tion, lchange dinformation, le travail enrseaux, avec le souci constant de la qualit etla plus large diffusion des mthodes dvalua-tion et des normes de qualit.

Une universit et le systme universitaire sontdes organisations complexes. Mais elles com-portent galement, de manire plus ou moinsextensive, des situations plus standardises,dont il est possible dapprcier les volutionstendancielles et qui doivent tre planifies,programmes et organises de manireclassique.

Le management stratgique doit pouvoir grer, en les combinant, ces deux types desituation.


31/36

Il nexiste pas de modle standard du mana-gement stratgique. Chaque universit a saforme de gouvernement , ses structures , sestraditions , son exprience, ses problmes rsoudre, ses personnes, ses moyens, sa capa-

cit de manager et en particulier sa pratiquede leadership. Cest son style de managementpropre.

Une direction forte, centralise, mais dontlautorit et le savoir-faire sont bien accepts,avec des personnels motivs pour la qualit,et une bonne communication, peut exercer un management innovateur mais qui a seslimites. Il existe aussi des modes de directionbureaucratique qui comportent peu de leader-ship, o le management consiste surtout administrer, surveiller les cots, bien pro-grammer la mise en oeuvre des actions dci-

des, effectuer des oprations selon les rgles,etc. Le management bureaucratique peutrpondre certaines situations mais lesimpulsions pour le changement risquent alorsde provenir de lextrieur (rformes et rgle-

mentations externes, contraintes sur lesmoyens, concurrence, mouvements centri- fuges des personnels et des ressources ouarrive de personnels influents nouveaux ...).

Le degr de participation et dinitiative desmembres la formulation et la ralisation despolitiques est galement spcifique; les tradi-tions et le leadership y jouent un rle clef.

Malgr cette spcificit, on peut considrer quil existe des principes gnraux de mana-gement stratgique: ils sont lobjet de cedocument.

PILOTAGE DUCHANGEMENT

COLLECTIF

31

Diriger , au sens strict, cest exercer une orien-tation par des moyens dorganisation, dani-mation et de contrle, qui visent raliser desobjectifs assigns par les organes de direction.Mais dans un organisme aussi divers et frag-ment quune universit, ces organes de direc-tion (conseils, dirigeants..) sefforcent plutt depiloter le changement (coaching ) grce un

systme de management participatif o lesdiscussions permettent de sentendre, en fonc-tion de lexprience, sur la nature des pro-blmes de dveloppement rsoudre, sur desmthodes stratgiques pour y parvenir, sur lesensembles dobjectifs, de buts, de moyens quien dcoulent.

Ce sont alors les normes de comportement ,la richesse et l efficacit des communica-

tions externes et internes, la qualit des dis-cussions qui sont les vritables vecteurs de lapratique stratgique plutt que les plans, lesstructures et la rglementation, qui relventdes fonctions dadministration des activitset des personnes.

Le pilotage pratique donc des mthodes

dorientation collective conues et ralisesavec le souci constant dapprcier les cartspar rapports aux objectifs, ainsi que la validitmme de ces objectifs et ladquation desmoyens; il s'agit de promouvoir la qualit desactivits par la diffusion dune culture dequalit , la responsabilisation du plus grandnombre dacteurs, lincitation linitiative et linnovation, et la diffusion des bonnespratiques.

Pour reprendre lexpression aujourdhuiusuelle, les pratiques de pilotage du change-ment, qui sont la base mme du manage-ment stratgique, visent renforcer le carac-tre d organisation apprenante deluniversit. On appelle ainsi une organisationcapable dtablir une mmoire collective deses innovations et dapprendre changer partir de ses expriences ou de celle des par-tenaires ou concurrents. On parle aussi d ap-prentissage collectif du changement .

Evidemment, une universit est par dfinitionune organisation apprenante puisque sesmembres, corps enseignant et tudiants ou

partenaires, inclus eux-mmes dans une largecommunaut de spcialistes de leurs disci-plines ou dexpertise professionnelle, ne ces-sent de renouveler leurs connaissances etdchanger leurs expriences par les publica-tions et les rencontres.

Mais il nest pas ais de passer de la connais-sance des individus celle dune collectivit.Linformation reste spcialise, experte, lieaux jeux de pouvoir, dinfluence, en bref auxstratgies des diffrents acteurs qui la dtien-

nent, toutes forts cloisonnes. Elle nest pasnon plus uniquement constitue de connais-sances bien enregistres et modlises, quil

APPRENTISSAGECOLLECTIF DUCHANGEMENT


32/36

est facile de transfrer. En fait, elle nest plei-nement accessible que dans le contexte com-plexe de lexprience, de lexpertise, dusavoir-faire, et surtout de la pratique delaction collective.

Il existe dautres connaissances que les exper-tises scientifiques: exprience dinnovationspdagogiques, mthodes de travail dans desrseaux de coopration et dchange,dveloppement des relations, mthodesdorganisation et de gestion, etc..). En outrela communication nest pas neutre; elle est unchange participatif, o les facteurs subjectifs,culturels, sociaux mme, affectant les parte-naires, contribuent la nature mme delinformation, aux significations et reprsen-tations qui lui sont associes. Le philosopheallemand J. Habermas parle, on le sait, dagir communicationnel. De ce fait, la circulationdes connaissances est un processus complexedont lefficacit dpend dune vritable cul-ture organisationnelle .

A lheure o les progrs de linformatiqueimpliquent et permettent techniquement detravailler en rseau, et o linformation doit

tre largement disponible pour tous lesacteurs, lexprience de lentreprise dmontreles difficults mettre en place une informa-tion intgrale et intgre. La ralisation estplus facile pour linformation qui concerne

des activits standardises, bien identifies,dans les domaines techniques, scientifiques,commerciaux, financiers ou dadministrationdes personnels. On peut alors constituer desbases de donnes largement accessibles, si dumoins il y une politique de communicationadquate.

En revanche, dans les secteurs moins standar-diss, la spcialisation et la fragmentation delinformation sur la pratique mme des mtiers

y sont souvent plus fortes; son change et sadiffusion sont plus difficiles raliser. Etant deculture artisanale, les universits relvent de cetype d'organisation o, en dehors des publica-tions et des enseignements, la connaissancenon formelle se transmet entre le petitnombre de personnes enseignants, cher-cheurs, tudiants impliques dans la ralisa-tion dun projet ou dun cours. Les mthodesde management stratgique doivent sefforcer de rduire ces obstacles.

COMMENT AMLIORERLAPPRENTISSAGEORGANISATIONNEL?

32

assurer de bonnes communications entreles membre de l'institution, et en particu-lier recenser soigneusement leurs pra-tiques innovatrices , les diffuser, engager leur discussion critique en vue de lestransposer et, ventuellement, de modifier les politiques institutionnelles en cours;

favoriser des normes de comportement etune organisation institutionnelles qui inci-tent ses membres exprimenter dessolutions nouvelles et analyser systmati-quement dautres expriences qui sem-blent pertinentes;

recueillir et interprter les signaux de satisfaction mis par ceux qui utilisent ses ser-vices (tudiants et usagers, personnels,partenaires et co-contractants, organes detutelle et pourvoyeurs de ressources, opinionpublique), les prendre en compte dans lesprocdures dvaluation de la qualit pour lareformulation des programmes daction;

apprendre reprer et exploiter lessignaux de discontinuit ou signaux

faibles , qui peuvent aider comprendreque des changements importants sontsusceptibles de se dvelopper lavenir etquil faut tre vigilant sur leur volution.Ils sont peu vidents et on ne peut lesreprer et les interprter quavec une cul-ture stratgique et prospective. Les vri-tables stratgies de changement sontgnralement fondes sur ces signaux etse traduisent par des orientations nou-velles, ncessairement risques , qui, dansle contexte actuel, peuvent sembler aber-rantes, impossibles mettre en oeuvre. Cesont des signaux conduisant des paris.

maintenir des pressions concurrentiellespour rduire les inerties et routinesdfensives, induire lmergence de nou-veaux rles, de nouveaux acteurs innova-teurs, les aider dans leur entreprise. Cetesprit de comptition et lindividualismequi laccompagne ne doivent pas cepen-dant renforcer les frontires entre

organes et personnes, freiner la coopra-tion, donc faire obstacle au dveloppe-ment dune culture dorganisation appre-


33/36

nante. Cest un srieux dfi pour le mana-gement, un des paradoxes rsoudre de

faon dynamique.

tablir des structures , des modes dorga-

nisation, et donc de communication, aussiflexibles que possible, cest--dire rapide-ment adaptables des situations nou-velles; faciliter les activits exprimentales.

Ainsi l'adaptation des structures et de lor-ganisation devient elle-mme un proces-sus de changement, en mme tempsqu'une manire collective dapprendrecomment changer. Mais cest un autreparadoxe rsoudre car, pour tre utilescomme rseaux de communication etdoprations, les structures doivent tre

bien tablies. Elles sont souvent renforcespar une culture associant des normes detravail et de relations compatibles avecelles. Mais, dans tout cadre structurel, dif-

frentes cultures sont concevables, avec

des modes de fonctionnement et des rela-tions entre acteurs qui permettent plusdadaptation, y compris une volution desstructures elles-mmes.

En outre, il existe toujours des structuresinformelles qui peuvent tre plus souples ouau contraire plus rigides, et le travail enrseaux aboutit souvent la mise en placedune organisation matricielle, o un acteur dveloppe des allgeances institutionnellesselon les diverses activits quil assure.

RATIONALISATION,INNOVATION,

PRSERVATION

33

Les mthodes de management stratgiquesefforcent dexercer les diffrents acteursdes stratgies universitaires combiner demanire approprie les trois composantes detoute stratgie de changement: stratgies derationalisation ; stratgies d innovation ; stra-tgies de conservation .

Rationaliser , cest mettre en oeuvre des objec-tifs dj dfinis avec une efficacit meilleure. La

rduction des cots unitaires en est la forme laplus classique, du moins lorsquil est possiblede dfinir de nouvelles mthodes plus produc-tives ou d'accrotre le volume des oprationsavec les moyens existants (par exemple unplus grand nombre dtudiants ou une rduc-tion du taux dencadrement). Une politique derationalisation est toujours ncessaire lorsquedes changements paraissent invitables car elledgage des ressources qui pourront treconsacres linnovation. Cependant leffica-cit ne peut tre mesure uniquement enterme de cot car la qualit est en jeu.

Linnovation dans la nature du service fourniou dans les processus qui permettent de le

fournir est frquemment le moyen de rationa-liser une activit, de la rendre plus efficaceet de meilleure qualit mais un cot dedveloppement plus lev. En effet, elleinduit souvent de nouvelles charges pour samise au point et son dveloppement. Il y adonc toujours un arbitrage entre rationalisa-

tion et innovation, et ces stratgies sont rare-ment dissocies.

Conserver , prserver, sont aussi frquemment

un impratif du changement: une rationalisa-tion par rduction des cots, intense et rapide,peut certes inciter des innovations de com-pensation. Cest mme lune des ractionsattendues dans les politiques de rduction decrdits qui accompagnent souvent desrformes de fond. Mais lorsque la qualit desservices nen souffre pas, ce peut tre parceque les modes de financement contractuels ouconditionnels ont t accrus, tenant compte

de cots spcifiques, cest--dire des risques derduction de lindpendance scientifique.

En bref, rationalisation, innovation, conserva-tion ont entre eux des relations paradoxalesdinterdpendance. Seule une politique insti-tutionnelle claire, cohrente et suivie, dansune pratique claire de management strat-gique, peut conduire un quilibre dyna-mique entre les trois dimensions du change-ment. Cest un exercice dautant plus arduque les consquences du processus de ratio-nalisation et dinnovation sur la prservationde certaines caractristiques peuvent tre dif-

ficiles concevoir ou prvoir et difficiles contrler dans leurs dveloppements cumula-tifs. De plus, dans les phases de changementimportant et rapide, on sous-estime souventleurs effets durables sur les attitudes, normeset modes de fonctionnement, toutes chosesncessaires la prservation des valeurs, dessavoir-faire, des relations, dune imagepublique, qui font partie du potentiel de

dveloppement de l'institution. De ce pointde vue, le management stratgique doit treconstamment en alerte, prt rorienter sesbuts et ses moyens.


34/36

Etant par dfinition participatif, le manage-ment stratgique a largement recours desprocessus de concertation en vue de rsoudreles conflits invitables associs au changement.On parle de stratgie consensuelle lorsque la

diversit des intrts et des points de vue nemet pas en cause lidentit de linstitution. Laconcertation et la ngociation ont donc pour objet de rduire les diffrences et de trouver une solution d'intrt gnral. La phase essen-tielle au dpart est pour les leaders de faireapparatre, comprendre et, si possible,admettre, la ncessit dun changement, dendiscerner les formes, et de rendre crdible,pour les plus influents au moins, lide que cechangement est possible et sera fructueux.Cest le moyen dtablir un climat de confiancesans lequel le cot, culturel et organisationnel,du changement peut tre prohibitif.

Le modle adaptatif . La complexit et lin-certitude quant aux problmes et aux solu-tions qui rgnent dans les pratiques strat-giques; la ncessit dapprendre en communpar lexprience; lintervention de multiplesprocessus interdpendants; les divergencesde valeurs, de motivations, dintrt, din-

fluence entre les acteurs; le fait que les statuts

universitaires comportent souvent llectiondes lus, sont tous des facteurs qui donnentprime une logique adaptative; il s'agit delancer des changements partiels, acceptableset prometteurs, qui en entranent dautres,dans le cadre dune inspiration gnrale duchangement qui se dfinit au coup par coup.

La fonction de leadership consiste donc la fois diffuser cette inspiration gnrale delaction et prparer par des ngociationslacceptation des solutions, souvent de com-promis, qui permettent de la traduire concr-tement en stratgies particulires, puis de

favoriser le transfert des ides et pratiquesnouvelles dun secteur lautre. En vue das-surer la meilleure crdibilit du changementet des inspirations nouvelles, les leaders pren-nent ainsi le temps de choisir les innovationsqui ont les meilleurs chances dtre accep-tes, dtre ralisables et transfrables. Onparle de stratgies adaptatives, tout faitconformes aux hypothses de rationalit

limite, bounded rationality , de H. Simons.

Le modle volontariste . Cependant, pour assurer la crdibilit du management strat-

gique, qui est essentielle sa pratique, les lea-ders peuvent devoir introduire rapidementdes politiques nouvelles, fortes, et qui don-nent le ton aux inspirations nouvelles pour laction quils entendent promouvoir. Cest le

cas, par exemple, des rformes profondesdorganisation, de programmes, de recrute-ment, de financement, souvent facilites par un changement de leadership au sommet oupar des contraintes stratgiques nouvelles,qui impliquent une raction rapide et pro-

fonde par exemple, en cas de rductionsoudaine et importante de crdits. Des chocssont alors ncessaires qui diffusent rapide-ment au moins lide de nouveaux scnariosstratgiques et modifient les anticipations, lesperspectives de positionnement des uns par rapport aux autres, ce qui dailleurs estaccompagn de rorganisation, de redistribu-tion de responsabilits et de ressources.

Stratgies paradoxales . Nous avons djparl de situations paradoxales en 74 et 75.On ne recherche pas le compromis au dpart.Ce sont mme les contradictions qui provo-quent le choc, ncessaire au nouveau scna-rio paradoxal. Cette manire doprer sup-pose un leadership vigoureux et efficace. Les

leaders, bien quils soumettent leur visionnouvelle de larges dbats, ne tentent pas dergler les contradictions par la concertationau dpart, de crainte daffaiblir, dans descompromis initiaux, les principes nouveauxdaction quils souhaitent voir mis en oeuvre.

Au contraire, ils les rvlent clairement dansles procdures initiales et ils comptent sur lesdbats ultrieurs et sur les procdures quidevront rsoudre ces incohrences pour engager une dynamique de changement col-lectif. Il est clair que ce type de stratgie nestralisable que dans des circonstances o lancessit du changement ne peut tre long-temps conteste ou ignore, que dans les ins-titutions o les leaders ont lautorit, la capa-cit et linfluence ncessaires pour rendre aumoins crdibles, sinon immdiatement accep-tables, les ides nouvelles.

On peut donc parler de stratgie paradoxale,comme moyen de faire apparatre une visionnouvelle , une signification et donc une inspi-

ration nouvelles. Cest par le managementstratgique que ces paradoxes devront tregrs afin d'laborer par laction collectiveune nouvelle pratique stratgique.

MODLES DEMANAGEMENTSTRATGIQUE

34


35/36

Ncessit de stratgies simples, fortes, capablesde rallier et dengager les protagonistes lesplus actifs autour de principes nouveauxdaction collective: cest le test du leadership.

Le choix dune mthode de managementstratgique est toujours un cas despce mais,de toute manire, il sagit de dfinir et deconduire des politiques et des stratgies.Quelle que soit la complexit de la situation,une stratgie, qui est lexpression dune

vision autre, est un ensemble de principesnouveaux, se rfrant des critres dactionsignificatifs. Ils doivent tre aussi simples etclairement exprims que possible, afin depouvoir tre aisment communiqus et aussi

afin de librer les initiatives et de susciter desnormes indites. En ce sens, toute stratgieest culturelle, normative, sappuyant certessur des rgles existantes qui permettent delengager, mais aussi porteuse de nouvellesnormes.

DES STRATGIESSIMPLES ET FORTES

35


36/36

36

The European University Association, as the representative organisation of both European universi-ties and national rectors conferences, is the main voice of the higher education community inEurope. Its membership includes 609 individual members, 34 collective members and 7 affiliatemembers in 45 countries throughout Europe.

EUAs mission is to promote the development of a coherent system of European higher educationand research, through active support and guidance to its members, to enhance their contributionsto society and the quality of their core activities.

EUA focuses its policies and services to members on the creation of a European area for higher education and research. More specifically, EUAs objectives are to develop consensus on a European higher education and research identity based on shared values; the compatibility of European higher education structures through commonly accepted norms; convergence of the European higher education and research areas to strengthen further the

sectors attractiveness in Europe and beyond.

Organisation reprsentant la fois les universits europennes et les confrences nationales derecteurs, lAssociation Europenne de lUniversit est le principal porte-parole de la communautde lenseignement suprieur en Europe. 609 membres individuels, 34 membres collectifs et 7membres affilis dans 45 pays dEurope en constituent les forces vives.

LEUA a pour mission de favoriser la mise en place dun systme cohrent denseignement sup-rieur et de recherche en

Documents

Strategic Manag Uni Institutional Development