CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …
Tiêu đề
De-bureaucratising organisational culture at a public university: A mixed-method study of the implementation of a liberal arts programme
Tác giả
Molek-Kozakowska K.; Geisler R.
Năm xuất bản
2020
Source title
Higher Education Quarterly
Số trích dẫn
1
DOI
10.1111/hequ.12262
Liên kết
Tóm tắt
This article explores how public higher education institutions may design and implement new study programmes based on an example of a liberal arts programme adopted recently at a Polish university. Using a mixed-method approach (actor analysis, ethnographic thick description, and discourse and rhetorical analysis of communications), we approach the data to trace the processes of negotiating and implementing the programme innovation. The study identifies which aspects of organisational design and organisational culture facilitate curricular innovations in the context of a public university in order to offer evidence-based recommendations for innovation managers. Of special interest here are (1) relations of power and responsibility (leadership styles) that are conducive to institutional innovations, (2) (in)formal norms and communication practices of effective teamwork and organisational culture, and (3) discursive patterns that spawn innovative solutions that bring about institutional changes. The analysis offers an insight into the specific processes involved in the de-bureaucratising of public universities and reframing their organisational culture to resemble a ‘learning organisation’ that allows a continual renewal of its structures and communication routines, with the support of adequate managerial practices. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Barker R.T., Caramata M.R., The role of communication in creating and maintaining a learning organization: Preconditions, indicators and disciplines, Journal of Business Communication, 35, 4, pp. 443-467, (1998); Barnett R., Towards the creative university: Five forms of creativity and beyond, Higher Education Quarterly, 74, 1, pp. 5-18, (2019); Carasco-Saul M., Kim W., Kim T., Leadership and employee engagement: Proposing research agendas through a review of literature, Human Resource Development Review, 14, 1, pp. 38-63, (2015); Choi S., Schnurr S., Exploring distributed leadership: Solving disagreements and negotiating consensus in a ‘leaderless’ team, Discourse Studies, 16, 1, pp. 3-24, (2014); Chwab K., Samans R., The future of jobs report, World Economic Forum, (2016); Denison D.R., Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness, (1990); Dill D., Academic accountability and university adaptation: The architecture of an academic learning organization, Higher Education, 38, 2, pp. 127-154, (1999); Drucker P., Innovation and entrepreneurship. Practice and principles, (1985); Foucault M., Archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language, (1972); Furr N., Dyer J., Leading your team into unknown, (2014); Gabriel Y., Fineman S., Sims D., Organizing and organizations, (2010); Geertz C., The interpretation of cultures, (1973); Geisler R., Kultura organizacyjna Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, (2012); Gibb A., Hofer A.-R., Klofsten M., The entrepreneurial higher education institutions, (2018); Giddens A., The constitutions of society, (1984); Goffman E., The presentation of self in everyday life, (1959); Guffey M.E., Du-Babcock B., Essentials of business communication, (2010); Gula R.J., Nonsense: A handbook of logical fallacies, (2002); Halliday M.A.K., Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning, (1978); Halvorsen K., Sarangi S., Team decision-making in workplace meetings: The interplay of activity roles and discourse roles, Journal of Pragmatics, 76, pp. 1-14, (2015); Hodge R., Kress G., Social semiotics, (1988); Hofstede G., Culture's consequences, (2001); Nuebold A., Doerr S., Maier G., Considering the orphan: Personal identification and its relations with transformational leadership, trust, and performance in a three-path mediation model, Leadership, 11, 2, pp. 230-254, (2015); Oertenbald A., On differences between organizational learning and learning organization, The Learning Organization, 8, 3, pp. 125-133, (2001); Pfitzer M., Bockstette V., Stamp M., Innovating for share value, (2013); Schein E., Organizational culture and leadership, (1985); Schrader M., Rears R.S., Jordan M.H., Organizational culture in public sector organizations. Promoting change through training and leading by example, Leadership & Organizational Development, 26, 6, pp. 492-502, (2005); Senge P., The fifth discipline, (1992); Swanger D., Innovation in higher education: Can colleges really change?, (2016); Taha A., Sirkova M., Ferencova M., The impact of organizational culture on creativity and innovation, Polish Journal of Management Studies, 14, 1, pp. 7-17, (2016); Tencer D., 85% of jobs that will exist in 2030 haven't been invented yet, Huffpost, (2017); Tierney W.G., Lanford M., Conceptualizing innovation in higher education, Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, pp. 1-40, (2016); Wang C., Parvaiz A., Organizational learning: A critical review, The Learning Organization, 10, 1, pp. 8-17, (2003); Weber M., Economy and society. A new translation, (2019); Wodak R., Meyer M., Methods of critical discourse analysis, (2001)
Nơi xuất bản
Blackwell Publishing
Hình thức xuất bản
Article
Open Access
Nguồn
Scopus