(De)constructing organizational boundaries of university administrations: changing profiles of administrative leadership at German universities

ABSTRACT

By analysing institutional changes of administrative leadership at German universities, this paper studies the construction of organizational boundaries as an important aspect of organizational transformation of universities as complete organizations. Building on an analysis of the formal status of administrative leadership at universities derived from higher education laws in Germany and occupational profiles of heads of university administrations based on a content-analysis of curriculum vitaes (N = 298), this paper seeks to contribute to a neglected domain in higher education research. It is argued that alterations to the formal status of administrative leaders from an ambivalent position between the ministry and the university to an integrated member of the university leadership can be seen as the embodiment of the construction of organizational boundaries vis-à-vis the state, whilst at the same time dissolving internal boundaries with regard to the former separation between academic and administrative affairs. By the same token, the formerly closed occupational group of heads of university administrations as law-educated members of the civil service has been opened to form a more heterogeneous composition of administrative leadership.

KEYWORDS:

• Institutional change
• organizational boundaries
• institutional governance
• university administration

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Dr. Albrecht Blümel is a research associate at the International Center of Higher Education Research (INCHER) at the University of Kassel (Germany). He studied public administration as well as sociology and previously worked at the German Research Institute for Public Administration in Speyer and the Hertie School of Berlin. His research is focused on governance and organization of universities specifically with regard to institutional leadership, management and administration.

Notes

1. Namely the ‘Secretaire General’ in France, ‘University Director’ in Austria and the Scandinavian countries or the ‘Regiringscommissaris’ in Belgium (Currie et al. 2003, 83–84)

2. A number of historical accounts and biographies of prominent curators provide ample evidence that the curators in most cases were highly knowledgeable about academic matters and possessed detailed information about the university (See Breitbach 2005, 122).

3. Due to the principle of cultural autonomy the formal responsibility for universities and their organisation falls under the jurisdiction of the 16 Bundesländer and their respective laws of higher education (Hartmer 2004, 167).

4. In accordance with the major stages of reissuing federal laws for higher education, the analysis follows their development along four time periods (1971–1980; 1981–1990; 1991–2000; 2001–2013).

5. Legal stipulations of higher education in some federal states allowed universities to opt out of all four of these possible variations of leadership models (Thieme 1996, 831).

6. The content analysis is made up of CVs of heads of university administration from public universities and universities of applied sciences (Fachhochschulen). Private and religious universities were left out. The selected CV of each post-holder was appropriated according to their first appointment as administrative head, that is, the year of entry into the respective university.