1 Introduction
Universities are constantly changing. They reflect changes in their societal environment, and, because academic middle managers have central roles within the current university hierarchy, they are at the centre of managing change, and they are also affected by it in many ways.
Universities constantly apply different logics and values in their operations and are therefore hybrid in their organisational nature (Pekkola et al., 2021). In the context of the evolving societal and organisational pressures that universities face, academic middle managers are confronted with a complex array of competing logics, practices and values. Moreover, the organisational dynamics of universities have undergone a significant transformation, largely driven by managerial trends that emphasise managerial logics. This transformation has led to a centralisation of management and an increase in the authority of academic managers, i.e. academics with a management position, within universities (Santiago & Carvalho, 2010; Pekkola et al., 2018).
Although universities are changing in many ways, they also have a durable ‘academic heartland’ that is not immediately affected by and is often protected from environmental changes (cf. Clark, 1998). Universities can be analysed as institutions or as organisations. That is, they are institutions with societal functions related to knowledge creation that serve as learning communities. These societal functions are relatively stable, but the organisational dimension of universities is a recent focus of attention that is constantly evolving and influenced by the changing environment, national reforms and management trends (Välimaa, 2022).
This divide into institution and organisation is one central characteristic of universities (Välimaa, 2022). Universities as institutions emphasise their nature as disciplinary communities and their staff as academic professionals guided by professional logics and values. Universities as organisations emphasise their staff as employees who are controlled and supervised by managers and guided by managerial logics (Evetts, 2009; Siekkinen et al., 2019). This division creates a constant tension in the work of academic managers, who must be loyal to both their academic and organisational reference groups and to the logics and values that they support and manifest (Pekkola et al., 2018).
This paper examines the grassroots impact of international policy trends that affect higher education by focusing on middle managers in Finnish universities, especially deans and heads of departments. In particular, the new
This ‘new university law’ has been analysed as a shift towards managerialism in Finnish universities, reducing the power of collegial decision-making bodies such as the university collegium and faculty boards, which include representatives of university staff and students. (Poutanen et al., 2022; Välimaa, 2012). For example, the centralisation of university management has increased the role of managers and academic managers, who tend to also hold professorial positions in universities (Pekkola et al., 2018). However, the role of academic managers, deans and department heads, has remained understudied in Finnish higher education research, and the new roles and positions of deans and other academic managers are still more or less unknown.
This paper addresses a current knowledge gap regarding the concrete influences of public management trends on Finnish higher education in the context of hybrid universities. In this paper, we begin by describing what we mean when we talk about the hybrid roles of managers and hybrid universities. Secondly, we look at how universities have changed and how this has affected the role of middle managers based on the literature. Third, we describe the Finnish context of this study. And, finally, we describe the survey data and discuss and draw conclusions in light of the survey analysis.
The empirical data were collected through surveys of academic middle managers, deans and department heads, employed at Finnish universities. The surveys included both multiple-choice questions (administered in spring 2020) and open-ended questions (administered in spring 2024). The empirical analysis of this paper focuses on the motivations of academic managers as well as the tensions that arise in their managerial roles.
2 Theoretical Backdrop
2.1 Hybrid Universities and the Hybrid Roles of Middle Managers
It is first necessary to define the terms ‘hybrid universities’ and ‘hybrid roles of middle managers’. We start by examining the nature of the hybrid university. The concept of the hybrid organisation has been the subject of study in the fields of public administration and organisational studies. Johanson and Vakkuri (2017) presented a framework for managing organisations that are
The theory of institutional logics (Thornton et al., 2012; Thornton & Occasion 1999) explores the reasons behind the diverse behaviours of individuals and organisations in different institutional settings and shows how different – and often conflicting – belief systems shape their identities and guide their decisions and actions. Institutional logics are defined as ‘frames of reference that condition actors’ choices for sense-making, the vocabulary they use to motivate action, and their sense of self and identity’ (Thornton et al., 2012, p. 2) and ‘as the socially constructed patterns of symbols and material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals and organizations produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality’ (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999, p. 804). However, different institutional logics often conflict with each other, e.g., professional and market logic or professional and corporate logic (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012).
Karré (2020) posited that hybridity can combine the optimal elements of disparate models, yet it can also result in organisations that are inherently confused and subject to a multitude of contradictory pressures (p. 31). Gulbrandsen and Thune (2020) emphasised that hybridity in the research organisations is a very multi-layered and complex phenomenon: ‘it not only entails a public-private dimension but also highlights a number of other dimensions of hybridity including knowledge, intellectual property rights and ownership, and norms and practices in research and development activities’ (p. 117). Pekkola et al. (2021, 2022) developed a model of ‘nested hybridity’ in Nordic higher education that considered the hybridity at the micro (positions, roles and identities), meso (organisation) and macro (system and policy) levels. Their model demonstrated in theory how the hybridity observed at higher organisational levels has implications for the lower levels, thereby illustrating how hybrid policies and funding for universities lead to the emergence of a hybrid positions for academic staff and a corresponding hybrid roles and identities.
Universities are professional organisations with a global academic network and strong cross-national disciplinary values and traditions, as well as national administrative idiosyncrasies; they do not therefore represent a typical modern organisation (Musselin, 2021). Thus, universities operate according to the logics of professional group and the values of the academic disciplines, which are distinct from the private and public spheres. Disciplines are distinguished by
Nevertheless, the coexistence of diverse logics within the context of higher education has already been subjected to theoretical scrutiny. In his 1983 work, Burton Clark presented a triangle of coordination model which identified three sources of coordination in higher education: the state, the market and the academic oligarchy (which can be interpreted as close to the academic profession). Although the analytical model is more concerned with the authority of actors than with logics, in practice these are integrated because these authorities introduce their own logics and values. Consequently, these three sources of coordination create a triangle that represents the hybrid logics applied in higher education and the interaction between them; private, public and academic profession.
In addition, Slaughter and Leslie’s book (1997) on academic capitalism addressed the tensions between the constantly strengthening market logic and the professional logic in universities in the context of the US. They described how academics have become like ‘state-subsidized entrepreneurs’ who operate in a market-like environment. Similarly, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) suggested the idea of a ‘triple helix’ in which new forms of close collaboration between universities, industries and governments support new kinds of innovation that leads to societal change. Hybridity in universities has also a base on greater demand on societal impact that is supported by cross-disciplinary collaboration (Geschwind et al., 2019).
In conclusion, in universities, a variety of logics concurrently exist, and the power struggles between them are a recognised phenomenon. The distinction between the university as an institution and as an organisation (Välimaa, 2022) is pertinent to this discussion because the former is associated with disciplinary and professional logics, while the latter is linked to managerial logics. Furthermore, this distinction underscores the inherent tension between the relatively stable ‘core’ and the evolving organisational structure. However, even the disciplinary core is subject to natural evolution as science and the group as a profession continue to evolve.
It is also important to consider the rationale for hybridity of the public sector and universities, which has been linked to increasing the efficiency of public organisations (Gulbrandsen & Thune, 2020). Central trends in the implementation of efficiency and the convergence of universities with the
In the research on professions, organisational (or managerial) and professional logics and values have been divided as opposing by Evetts, (e.g., 2009) and the idea of hybridity was later developed by Noordegraaf (2015, 2019) and especially within the academic profession by Bruckman and Carvalho (2020), Pekkola et al. (2018) and Siekkinen et al. (2019). Evetts (2009) argued that professionalism changed when it became influenced by NPM: occupational professionalism evolved into organisational professionalism. Occupational professionalism is manifested in the discourse constructed within professional groups and is characterised, for example, by relationships based on trust, collegial authority and control that are operationalised by the practitioners themselves. However, the newer form of organisational professionalism is manifested within the discourse of control, which is mainly used by the managers of organisations. It involves standardised work processes and practices, rational-legal forms of authority, hierarchical structures of authority and decision-making and performance reviews and accountability (Evetts, 2009).
However, hybridism has been used to overcome the notion of professionalism and managerialism as opposing dimensions or different institutional logics (Carvalho, 2014; Noordegraaf, 2015) by proposing that they can co-exist. Noordegraaf (2015, p. 2) described how hybrid professionalism, which includes organisational and professional aspects, can be intertwined in everyday practices. In Noordegraaf’s (2015) model, the process begins with two conflicting dimensions (profession and organisation) that lead to hybridity as they merge. Rather than highlighting tensions, hybridity aims to overcome contradictions: ‘hybrid professionalism emerges when professional and managerial principles come together – principles that concern (1) how work is coordinated, (2) how authority is established and (3) what values are at stake’ (pp. 2–3). In Noordegraaf’s (2011, 2015) model, managerial principles are eventually internalised in professional work, and managerial practices become part of the everyday work practices of professionals. In the last phase of this model, professionalism goes beyond hybridity and leads to well-managed professional work (Noordegraaf, 2011, 2015).
Furthermore, the study by Brückmann and Carvalho (2018) concluded that there is a hybridity in higher education that consists of collegial and managerial
2.2 Changing Universities and the Changing Roles and Identities of Academic Middle Managers
The influence of international public management and neoliberal trends, including managerialism and new public management (NPM) – which have affected the internal governance structures and power dynamics within universities and emphasised managerial logics as in other public organisations – have led to significant changes in the roles of academic staff and the academic profession as a whole (Deem & Brehony, 2005; Evetts, 2009; Pekkola et al., 2018; Siekkinen et al., 2019). Managerialism has been described as an ‘ism’ – an idealism that includes the idea that organisations can solve their problems through management (Deem & Brehony, 2005; Klikauer 2015). NPM spread from the United Kingdom (UK) to Europe in the late 1980s, thereby introducing the idea that efficiency in public-sector organisations, including universities, can be improved through more structured and standardised organisational practices (Evetts, 2009; Ferlie et al., 2008).
Finnish universities have been impacted by NPM and managerialism in multiple ways. Many academics have opposed managerial developments that have reduced the power of collegial actors; university collegiums and faculty boards, and structures in universities. A number of deans, for example, are currently appointed rather than elected, and the strategic development of universities is led by the university top management such as rectors and boards, not including academic staff or students (Poutanen et al., 2022; Välimaa, 2012). However, the picture is rather complex. In general, collegial practices may not support equality within the group of academic professionals. They may not recognise power struggles within the professional group, which can lead to the exclusion of some by others (Deem, 2022).
As Finnish universities have institutional autonomy, they have started to develop their HRM and have introduced new career structures, tenure tracks,
However, it has also been studied that the peer review system used in recruitment and performance evaluations simultaneously empowers both groups − academics and managers in different ways, as professors tend to be heavily involved in these processes, thus exercising academic and disciplinary power over managerial one (Musselin, 2013). In general, academics are critical of any form of control (Deem, 2004; Evetts, 2011), and academic freedom makes academics, especially professors, a difficult group to manage because they have both − disciplinary as well as organisational power in their organisations (Evetts, 2011; Carvalho & Diogo, 2017; Pekkola et al., 2022).
As the number of academic managers in universities has grown and their power has increased, research on academic managers has also increased. In particular, manager-academics, i.e. professors with a managerial position (Deem, 2004), have been identified as a distinct group that differs from professors without a managerial position by the mixed values they represent; that is, they combine professional and managerial logics and values in their work (Pekkola et al., 2018; Deem & Brehony, 2005). Moreover, the position of the academic manager has also become a separate career, such that these managers do not pursue returning to a purely academic career (Musselin, 2021). This role is possible in Finnish universities, although it is not common.
These managers who have entered universities from outside of academia and lack an academic focus might have a different understanding regarding academic work and its management, which can lead to tensions in the workplace. For example, when evaluating the performance of academic work done by academic staff, managers need to be aware of its specificities, such as the fact that the outcomes of academic work are very diverse; including teaching, research, societal impact, administration, project management, and leadership. The outcomes are also very difficult to define, and most of the outputs are not measurable, at least not in a quantifiable way (Musselin, 2007). This is a challenge, for example, in the assessment of activities with a societal impact, which are also strongly influenced by disciplinary specificities.
However, roles and identities can also be hybrid and mix many logics and values (Pekkola et al., 2021). Carvalho and Santiago (2010) found that many deans have a strong academic identity despite their managerial role and the strong organisational focus they apply to their work. In their study, they demonstrated that deans perceived themselves first as academics and then managers, i.e. they had a stronger professional than managerial identity. They also felt that it was essential to retain their academic research and teaching roles, without which they felt they would be ‘just managers’.
In addition, the new entrepreneurial activities of universities, which include increasing cross-sectoral and non-academic collaborations and the constant search for external funding, make the role of middle managers increasingly complex because they are expected to know both worlds. These entrepreneurial activities have transformed academia into a more entrepreneurial space where research can be commercialised. Slaughter and Leslie recognised this in the United States (US) context some 30 years ago when they conceptualised it as ‘academic capitalism’ (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). In this vein, Lam (2015) studied academics who have entrepreneurial roles in universities and created typologies of academics with traditional and entrepreneurial orientations. In her study, most of the academics fell into the ‘entrepreneurial hybrid’ category. That is, the academics believed in the importance of collaboration between academia and business, but they also recognised the need to maintain a boundary between the two. While they had hybrid roles, a strong academic identity remained.
For middle managers, the different expectations of top managers and academics can cause stress. Because of the difficult decisions they make, they are sometimes perceived and labelled as ‘bad guys’. To cope with these tensions and conflicts, academic middle managers may play a role in which they
2.3 The Finnish Context – Changes in Universities and University Management in Finland
Changes in management structures in Finnish higher education have been analysed in several papers (e.g., Pekkola & Kivistö, 2019; Pinheiro et al., 2019; Välimaa, 2022). Furthermore, the role of professors with management positions (Pekkola et al., 2018) and the new hybrid roles of academic managers (Pekkola et al., 2020) have been discussed, as has role hybridity in Nordic countries (Pekkola et al., 2021, 2022). Based on this previous research, changes in Finnish universities and their management can be traced back to the early 1990s. The 1990s saw major changes in the management structures of Finnish public administration in response to global changes and trends towards building more performance-oriented and efficient administration.
In Finland, universities have been at the forefront of implementing the ideology of performance-based management, and management of Finnish universities has developed into one of the most performance-oriented public systems in the world (Kivistö & Kohtamäki, 2016). This performance-oriented policy has also had an impact on the top management of Finnish universities. The changes have been gradual, culminating in two major legislative reforms in 1997 and 2009. The 1997 reform created a single legislation for all universities, and the 2010 reform separated universities from the state’s personnel and budget structure and made them independent legal entities.
In parallel with the ‘structural development’ of the Finnish higher education system through legislation and mergers, the role of managers has changed. The major changes in the 2000s can be divided into two different categories: changes before the 2009 legislative reform and changes after the reform. This division has two functions: firstly, it provides a broader perspective on the changes, i.e. they did not happen overnight, and secondly, it highlights the importance of legislation for the management structure even in post-2009 universities.
Already before the legislative reform in the 2009, three important incremental changes were made to university legislation. Firstly, external members were made mandatory on university boards. Secondly, full-time deans (professional managers) were made possible, and universities were given the third mission; societal impact. The appointment of a university rector by its board was also discussed during the legislative change, but the appointment remained in the hands of the collegial body of universities, i.e. collegiums.
The subsequent 2009 legislative reform introduced six important and interrelated changes. Firstly, the legal status of universities was changed from public
Finally, the number of universities was reduced from 20 to 16 (and is currently 14 as of this writing) (Pekkola & Kivistö, 2013; also see detailed governance structure in Pekkola & Kivistö, 2019). In addition, important decisions were made about the areas that would considered to be under universities’ purview. For example, the overall changes meant that universities were allowed to have their own personnel policies, internal structures and management systems.
3 Data and methods
The data that were analysed for this paper consisted of two surveys. The first dataset was collected through an electronic survey of rectors (n = 10), vice-rectors (n = 9) and deans (n = 32) at all Finnish universities in March 2020. However, only the data collected from the 32 deans are referred to in this chapter. The survey was sent to 114 people, of whom 52 responded, for a response rate of 45 %. The proportion of female deans was 39 % (n = 13), and the proportion of male deans was 58 % (n = 19). The survey was part of a project funded by the Finnish Union of University Professors, the original aim of which was to evaluate the recruitment of professors at Finnish universities. However, it was enriched with questions about crisis leadership when the coronavirus pandemic affected the Finnish Higher Education system.
The other survey data were collected in spring 2024 and were related to the project ‘Crises, university management and work: How can universities perform better in crises?’ (Perkins et al., 2024). The survey, which was sent to all universities and university of applied sciences, included top managers (rectors and vice-rectors), middle managers (e.g., deans and heads of units), lower-middle managers and heads of subunits (e.g., heads of departments) and ‘other managers’. For the purposes of this paper, only the data from the middle managers at universities are included, i.e. deans (n = 21) and heads of units (n = 16).
The open question that was used in this study was, ‘Considering your current position as a manager, what kind of tensions and challenges exist for you in your work (related to, for example, your different roles at the organisation, personnel management, conflicting demands of higher-ups and staff you
Deans in Finnish universities work as heads of faculties, and it is very common that they hold a professor position at the same time. Heads of units have management positions at the departmental level, and they also hold senior academic positions, such as professor or possibly lecturer or senior researcher. People are selected in these positions by a rector (deans) and by deans (heads of units).
The quantitative survey data was analysed using descriptive methods (in the IBM SPSS), since survey data were rather limited in terms of the number of respondents.The qualitative survey data was analysed using thinking with a theory (Hiesh & Shannon, 2005), where the researcher is familiar with the theoretical considerations as they reflect the data with them while forming themes emerging from the data.
4 Findings
4.1 The Survey Conducted in 2020
In the survey, the deans were asked to rank on a scale from 1 to 5 for whom they felt they were most responsible, 1 being ‘least responsible’ and 5 being ‘most responsible’. The groups for whom they were asked to rank their level of responsibility were academic staff, upper management, the scientific community, students or external partners (Figure 12.1).
Responses to the survey question: “As an academic manager, I am responsible for …” (put in order from 1 to 5)
These results aligned well with the theoretical discussion presented previously about the orientations of middle managers in general. That is, even though they have hybrid roles and identities, most of them perceive having an academic core, with professional values and logics.
4.2 The Survey Conducted in 2024
Particularly in times of austerity pressures, there are naturally tensions …It can be difficult for an individual employee to see the big picture and thus understand management’s decisions.
The usual conflicts between hopes and reality. Management wants change, employees want continuity and peace of mind.
As a dean you are stuck between the top management and academia, a bit like the patty in a hamburger.
The responses also reflected frustrations with bureaucratic structures, organisational inefficiencies and policies imposed by universities’ central administration that did not seem to reflect the realities at the departmental or faculty level. In addition, the staff relied on these middle managers to shield them from confusing policies, which added to the pressure on the role.
Routine tasks take up a lot of your time. There is not enough time for daily monitoring.
Another challenge is that new guidelines and electronic systems keep coming from central administration that don’t seem to make sense, but I, as a manager, should encourage staff to follow and use them.
Middle managers must also navigate the challenge of staff members who resist new policies or changes, especially when these seem bureaucratic or unnecessary from their perspective. This resistance often stems from the university’s culture and history of ‘frozen conflicts’. However, this resistance also demonstrated the tensions between professional and managerial values and perspectives.
Another level of tension is history. At the university, problem cases are often just buried, and frozen conflicts exist at multiple levels. People who think critically wanting to keep their own heads is of course the root cause. So, university people are very conservative, and no changes are likely to come.
Many middle managers reported that dwindling resources in higher education have led to increased competition for funding and other essential resources, which creates a tense working atmosphere. While the managers had to sometimes take the side of the organisation and impose strict budget guidelines, the academics found it difficult to understand the priorities and choices of the management.
All the tensions and challenges I experience at work are related to the scarce and dwindling resources in higher education and research, the need for savings and the struggle for resources between teams. These challenges and tensions also lead to a deteriorating working atmosphere.
There is a lot of wrangling over resources and their fair distribution. That’s what it’s always like.
[With the] [l]ack of time for senior management to deal with issues, bottlenecks exist, and it negatively affects the way they carry out their own work and communicate with their own unit.
The perceptions of the various tensions reported by the deans and department heads captured the complex dynamics they faced in their middle-management roles in universities. Because middle managers often see themselves as academics and peers of their academic staff, these tensions can be mentally taxing when solutions are not easy and conflicts arise between top management and academic staff – with middle managers caught in the middle. This dynamic is bound to be stressful and to cause identity stress for the middle managers. Funding issues, in particular, are difficult because their resolution sometimes means reducing staff numbers or restricting the ability of academics to work and travel.
Supporting academic staff in times of austerity may require creative solutions. Middle managers are often motivated to do what is best for everyone in every situation, and this can create stress for them when trying to resolve issues. However, change is sometimes inevitable and may be beyond the control of middle managers. For academics, changes to organisational structures and new technologies aimed at increasing efficiency can take a lot of time and effort to implement, and may be experienced negatively, causing inefficiency. Therefore, from a managerial point of view, academics can appear resistant to change.
5 Discussion and Conclusions
In this study, we examined the tensions and challenges in the roles of middle management, particularly in the context of Finnish universities in light of the managerial transition (Pekkola et al., 2018; Poutanen et al., 2022; Välimaa, 2012). We analysed data from two surveys. The first survey related to deans’ and department heads’ perceptions of who they felt responsible for within the university. Respondents ranked their perceived responsibility as follows: first to academic staff, second to senior management, third to students, fourth to
In their open-ended responses to the second survey, deans and heads of departments described tensions and challenges between management and academics that placed them in the middle, trying to meet the needs of all parties in their operational work. Kekäle (2003) described the role of academic leaders/managers as ‘thermostats’ because they are constantly solving problems and negotiating between academic staff and top management. Competition for resources creates most of the tensions as universities struggle with decreasing public funding and the increasing costs of infrastructure and staff. New expectations and work tasks for middle managers increase the burden; reporting and evaluations in universities takes a lot of time. Brown et al. (2019) conducted a study investigating the coping mechanisms adopted by middle managers when faced with these pressures. The study revealed that the participants rationalised their decisions in order to distance themselves from challenging circumstances. This was not the focus of this study, but it would be an interesting topic for further research.
As universities are responsive to the expectations of society to have more impact (Geschwind et al., 2020) and be more cost-effective (Bleiklie et al., 2017), university governance and management have been changing accordingly (Musselin, 2021). In addition, as the performance of universities is constantly being evaluated and connected with their funding (Kivistö & Vellamo, 2023), managers have pressures to emphasise the outputs of their units. Therefore, the performance of the academic staff has been increasingly monitored (Pekkola & Siekkinen, 2024) which has increased the workload of middle managers. As well as identifying and responding to societal and global trends affecting universities, a middle manager’s priority is supporting academic professionals in their core university functions: research, teaching and societal impact.
Consequently, as in hybrid universities where different logics and values prevail, hybridity is visible and concrete in academic management work (Pekkola et al., 2021). Inspite of the academic “core”, the ideas of efficiency and managerialism have been integrated in the minds of many academics (Brückmann & Carvalho, 2019), especially for academic managers (Pekkola et al., 2018).
These findings support the similar findings from Portugal of middle managers as academic professionals whose roots are also deep in academic grounding
Acknowledgements
Íris Santos declares that this chapter was also written under the activities of the research centre UIDEF, Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal (https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/04107/2020).
References
Cristofoletti, E. C., & Pinheiro, R. (2023). Greening the university? Assessing the impact of sustainability and SDG s in universities’ values and strategies. In W. Leal Filho, F. Frankenberger, & U. Tortato (Eds.), Sustainability in practice (World sustainability series, pp. 111–126). Springer.
Kivistö, J., & Kohtamäki, V. (2016). Does performance-based funding work? Reviewing the impacts of performance-based funding on higher education institutions. In R. M. O. Pritchard, A. Pausits, & J. Williams (Eds.), Positioning higher education institutions: From here to there (pp. 215–226). Sense Publishers.
Pekkola, E., Piñheiro, R., Geschwind, L., Siekkinen, T., Pulkkinen, K., & Carvalho, T. (2020). Nested hybridity and value definition in public higher education: A conceptual view. In J. Vakkuri & J. E. Johanson (Eds.), Hybrid governance, organisations and society: Value creation perspectives (pp. 59–80). Routledge.
Seeber, M., Lepori, L., Montauti, M., Enders, J., de Boer, H., Weyer, E., Bleiklie, I., Hope, K., Michelsen, S., Mathisen, G.N., Frølich, N., Scordato, L., Stensaker, B., Waagene, E., Dragsic, Z., Kretek, P., Krücken, G., Magalhães, A., Ribeiro, F.M., Sousa, S., Veiga, A., Santiago, R, Marini, G., & Reale, E., (2015). European universities as complete organizations? Understanding identity, hierarchy and rationality in public organizations. Public Management Review, 17(10), 1444–1474.