Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Higher Education in Germany—Recent Developments in an International Perspective pp 133–176Cite as

German Higher Education Institutions as Organizations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Higher Education Dynamics ((HEDY,volume 49))

Abstract

In this chapter we also describe recent developments at the meso level of the German higher education system. However, in contrast to Chap. 4 we are not dealing with governance structures, instead we are applying selected organizational approaches to German higher education institutions in order to observe changes, but also stable patterns at these institutions. Our aim is twofold: firstly, we want to describe idiosyncratic features of German higher education institutions that become visible when we apply organizational concepts; secondly, we deal with the question of whether German higher education institutions are developing towards the concept of a “complete organization”, or whether there are obstacles standing in the path of such a development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In qualifying this statement it should be noted that implicit national properties sometimes do play a role in organizational theory concepts. This is particularly the case for concepts concerned with organizations such as higher education institutions that are heavily dependent on their respective national environments. Special approaches to higher education organizations which we will be looking at later use American universities, more specifically American research universities, as a reference model. Because of this, it is to be expected that properties of these organizations are incorporated in these concepts. Especially because national characteristics are not supposed to play a role in organizational theory, it is therefore a critical question whether simply transferring these to German universities, for example, is at all possible and/or to consider what adaptations need to be made if it is. For details of specific organizational models of European universities, see Maassen and Olsen (2007) who look at both historical models as well as recent developments. A connection between changing national conditions in Europe and organizational transformations can be found in Bleiklie et al. (2017). For an instructive comparison of universities under pressure in Europe and the USA, see the contributions in Popp Berman and Paradeise (2016). For the interplay of organizational structure and teaching, learning and identities see the contributions in Leišytė and Wilkesmann (2016).

  2. 2.

    See also Scott (1981, 27).

  3. 3.

    A comprehensive appraisal of the history and development of universities can be found in de Ridder-Symoens (1992, 1996) and Rüegg (2004, 2011).

  4. 4.

    See also Leavitt (1965).

  5. 5.

    See for example the so-called Hawthorne experiments (e.g. Roethlisberger and Dickson 1939).

  6. 6.

    Bearing in mind Max Weber’s pure type of legal domination/authority as a bureaucratic administrative unit, in these organizations there is an inextricable separation of office and person.

  7. 7.

    Exceptions to this are the input members of “total institutions” observed by Goffman (1961), such as prisons, monasteries and also secure psychiatric clinics.

  8. 8.

    For further details of the resulting challenges for science and higher education management see Krücken (2008).

  9. 9.

    We would also like to point out that in recent years other general organization theories have been applied and have contributed to new and interesting insights into German higher education institutions. The resource dependence theory is just one of these (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). Nienhüser (2012) has used the resource dependence theory to explain the composition of higher education boards of governors in Germany, and Larmann (2013) has used the approach to analyze the situation regarding small higher education institutions in structurally weak locations. More recent international contributions applying organizational theory to higher education institutions include Fumasoli and Stensaker (2013), Popp Berman and Paradeise (2016) and some chapters in Bleiklie et al. (2017).

  10. 10.

    Greenwood et al. (2017) provide a comprehensive review of the theory. A current overview of theoretical developments and empirical applications in Europe can be found in Krücken et al. (2017).

  11. 11.

    For an extension and application of that concept in relation to European universities see Hüther and Krücken (2016).

  12. 12.

    On the tensions between different institutional logics in universities see also the contributions in Frost et al. (2016).

  13. 13.

    As part of the neo-institutional organization theory presented above, we saw an example of the decoupling of formal structures and activity structures. This decoupling is advantageous because it secures and/or generates legitimacy for the organization and prevents the potentially negative impact of expectations arising from the environment on operational processes.

  14. 14.

    For a long time, this was a significant difference to universities of applied sciences. As described in Chap. 3, for a long time universities of applied sciences had virtually no mid-level academic staff and, thus, hardly any university-like chair structures. However, in Chap. 3 we also described how this mid-level academic staff at universities of applied sciences has developed in recent years. This development is based on these university-like chair structures and thus upholds the traditional German chair structure described below.

  15. 15.

    The standard example for this is: The operation was a success, the patient died.

  16. 16.

    The everyday impact can be vividly illustrated with the help of a concrete example—albeit an extreme one. At a university, the president was attempting to exert his formal decision-making competence on the departments. When conflict arose, a counterstrategy from the departments was to present legal opinions showing that the formal decision-making competence of the university leadership was unconstitutional. This threat of legal action before the Federal Constitutional Court was deployed as an organizational resource of power at this institution for a whole range of controversial decisions.

  17. 17.

    The simulation distinguished between three types of decision: “decision by resolution”, “decision by oversight” and “decision by flight”. For the sake of simplicity, we describe the first type of decision as rational decision-making and the two other types as decision-making in garbage can mode.

  18. 18.

    Parts of the German constitution are subject to a so-called Ewigkeitsklausel—an eternity clause—defined in Article 79.3 of the constitution. Among other things, this states that principles contained in Articles 1–20 may never be changed.

References

  • Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bieletzki, N. (2018). The power of collegiality. A qualitative analysis of university presidents’ leadership in Germany. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I., Enders, J., & Lepori, B. (Eds.). (2017). Managing universities: Policy and organizational change in a western European comparative perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan/Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blümel, A. (2015). Von der Hochschulverwaltung zum Hochschulmanagement: Wandel der Hochschulorganisation am Beispiel der Verwaltungsleitung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blümel, A. (2016). (De)constructing organizational boundaries of university administrations: Changing profiles of administrative leadership at German universities. European Journal of Higher Education, 6(2), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2015.1130103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E. L., Altbach, P. G., & Whitelaw, M. J. (1994). The academic profession: An international perspective. A special report. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D., & Merrien, F.-X. (1999). Governance of universities and modernisation of the state: Analytical aspects. In D. Braun & F.-X. Merrien (Eds.), Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view (pp. 9–33). London/Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breisig, T., & Kahl, H.-J. (2000). Personalentwicklung an Hochschulen. In A. Hanft (Ed.), Hochschulen managen? Zur Reformierbarkeit der Hochschulen nach Managementprinzipien (pp. 213–232). Neuwied: Luchterhand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, P., & Meyer, J. W. (2015). Hyper-organization: Global organizational expansion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N. (1989). The organization of hypocrisy. Talk, decisions and actions in organizations. Chichester/New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000). Constructing organizations: The example of public sector reform. Organization Studies, 21(4), 721–746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840600214003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BVerfG. (1973). 1 BvR 424/71; 1 BvR 325/72 vom 29.05.1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • BVerfG. (2010). 1 BvR 748/06 vom 20.7.2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system. Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (Ed.). (1987). The academic profession. National, disciplinary and institutional settings. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1973). Power and the structure of society. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (2000). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1992 [1963]). A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F. (2006). Mechanisms and the theory of organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(2), 114–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492605280238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Boer, H., Enders, J., & Leisyte, L. (2007). Public sector reform in Dutch higher education: The organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00632.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Ridder-Symoens, H. (Ed.). (1992). A history of the university in Europe. Vol. I: Universities in the middle ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Ridder-Symoens, H. (Ed.). (1996). A history of the university in Europe. Vol. II: Universities in early modern Europe (1500–1800). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and the collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J., & Teichler, U. (Eds.). (1995). Der Hochschullehrerberuf. Aktuelle Studien und ihre hochschulpolitische Diskussion. Neuwied: Luchterhand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayol, H. (1916). Administration Industrielle et Générale; Prévoyance, Organisation, Commandement, Coordination, Controle. Paris: H. Dunod et E. Pinat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline & punish. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidson, E. (1970). Professional dominance: The social structure of medical care. In New Brunswick. London: Atherton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism. The third logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, J., Hattke, F., & Reihlen, M. (Eds.). (2016). Multi-level governance in universities: Strategy, structure, control. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fumasoli, T., & Stensaker, B. (2013). Organizational studies in higher education: A reflection on historical themes and prospective trends. Higher Education Policy, 26(4), 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2013.25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glassman, R. B. (1973). Persistence and loose coupling in living systems. Behavioral Science, 18(2), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830180202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T.B., & Meyer, R.E. (Eds.). (2017). The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. 2nd. Edition. Los Angeles/London: Sage Publ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1989). The theory of communicative action. Volume 2, lifeworld and system. A critique of functionalist reason. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2008). Institutional entrepreneurship. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 198–217). Los Angeles/London: Sage Publ.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hüther, O. (2008). Starke Dekane – Schwache Professoren? Vergleich und Analyse der deutschen Landeshochschulgesetze. Hochschulmanagement, 3(1), 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hüther, O. (2011). New Managerialism? Gemeinsamkeiten und Differenzen der Leitungsmodelle in den Landeshochschulgesetzen. die hochschule, 20(1), 50–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2011). Wissenschaftliche Karriere- und Beschäftigungsbedingungen. Organisationssoziologische Überlegungen zu den Grenzen neuer Steuerungsmodelle an deutschen Hochschulen. Soziale Welt, 62(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.5771/0038-6073-2011-3-305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2013). Hierarchy and power: A conceptual analysis with particular reference to new public management reforms in German universities. European Journal of Higher Education, 3(4), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2013.850920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2015). Incentives and power: An organizational perspective. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance (pp. 69–86). Cham/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2016). Nested organizational fields: Isomorphism and differentiation among European universities. In E. Popp Berman & C. Paradeise (Eds.), The university under pressure (pp. 53–83). Bingley: Emerald.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, D., Wald, A., Franke, K., Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2007). Drittmittel als Performanzindikator der wissenschaftlichen Forschung. Zum Einfluss von Rahmenbedingungen auf Forschungsleistungen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 59(1), 125–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-007-0006-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaspers, K. (1946). Die Idee der Universität. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kieser, A., & Ebers, M. (2006). Organisationstheorien. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieser, A., & Walgenbach, P. (2010). Organisation. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleimann, B. (2015). Universität und präsidiale Leitung. Führungspraktiken in einer multiplen Hybridorganisation. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloke, K., & Krücken, G. (2010). Grenzstellenmanager zwischen Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft. Eine Studie zu Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeitern in Einrichtungen des Technologietransfers und der wissenschaftlichen Weiterbildung. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 32(3), 32–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosmützky, A. (2012). Between mission and market position: Empirical findings on mission statements of German higher education institutions. Tertiary Education and Management, 18(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.617466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosmützky, A. (2016). Mission statements and the transformation of German universities into organizational actors. Recherches Sociologiques et Anthropologiques, 47(47–1), 41–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosmützky, A., & Krücken, G. (2015). Sameness and difference. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2015.1006013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G. (2003). Learning the “new, new thing”: On the role of path dependency in university structures. Higher Education, 46(3), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025344413682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G. (2007). Organizational fields and competitive groups in higher education: Some lessons from the bachelor/master reform in Germany. Management Revue, 18(2), 187–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G. (2008). Lässt sich Wissenschaft managen? Wissenschaftsrecht, 41(4), 345–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G., & Drori, G. S. (Eds.). (2009). World society: The writings of John W. Meyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the university into an organizational actor. In G. S. Drori, J. W. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and organization. World society and organizational change (pp. 241–257). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G., & Röbken, H. (2009). Neo-institutionalistische Hochschulforschung. In S. Koch & M. Schemmann (Eds.), Neo-Institutionalismus in der Erziehungswissenschaft (pp. 326–346). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G., & Wild, E. (2010). Zielkonflikte. Herausforderungen für Hochschulforschung und Hochschulmanagement. Hochschulmanagement, 5(2), 58–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G., Blümel, A., & Kloke, K. (2009). Towards organizational actorhood of universities: Occupational and organizational change within German university administrations. In FÖV discussion paper 48. Speyer: FÖV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G., Blümel, A., & Kloke, K. (2013). The managerial turn in higher education? On the interplay of organizational and occupational change in German academia. Minerva, 51(4), 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-013-9240-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G., Mazza, C., Meyer, R., & Walgenbach, P. (Eds.). (2017). New themes in institutional analysis. Topics and issues from European research. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühl, S. (2011). Organisationen. Eine sehr kurze Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larmann, V. (2013). Kleine Hochschulen in strukturschwachen Lagen: Fallstudien aus Perspektive des Ressourcenabhängigkeitsansatzes. Flensburg: Universität Flensburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, M. S. (1979). Professionalism: Rise and fall. International Journal of Health Services, 9(4), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.2190/68jg-4bt4-jdw9-0lhr.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leavitt, H. J. (1965). Applied organizational change in industry: Structural, technological and humanistic approaches. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 1144–1170). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leicht, K. T., & Fennell, M. L. (2008). Institutionalism and the professions. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 431–448). Los Angeles/London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leišytė, L., & Wilkesmann, U. (2016). Organizing academic work in higher education: Teaching, learning and identities. Milton Park: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomi, A., & Harrison, R. J. (Eds.). (2012). The garbage can model of organizational choice: Looking forward at forty, Research In the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 36). Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüde, R. von, Valk, R., & Daniel, M. (2003). Sozionik – Modellierung soziologischer Theorie. Münster: LIT Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1964). Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N., & Schorr, K. E. (1982). Das Technologiedefizit der Erziehung und die Pädagogik. In N. Luhmann & K. E. Schorr (Eds.), Zwischen Technologie und Selbstreferenz: Fragen an die Pädagogik (pp. 11–41). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maassen, P. A., & Olsen, J. P. (Eds.). (2007). University dynamics and European integration. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. H., Gutman, H., & Hutton, P. H. (Eds.). (1993). Technologien des Selbst. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthies, H., & Simon, D. (Eds.). (2008). Wissenschaft unter Beobachtung. Effekte und Defekte von Evaluationen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, F. (2009). Die Universität als Akteur. Zum institutionellen Wandel der Hochschulorganisation. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michels, R. (1915 [1911]). Political parties. A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. London: Jarrold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mieg, H. (2003). Problematik und Probleme der Professionssoziologie. Eine Einleitung. In H. Mieg & M. Pfadenhauer (Eds.), Professionelle Leistung – Professional performance. Positionen der Professionssoziologie (pp. 11–46). Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives. Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management. Inside our strange world of organizations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizruchi, M. S., & Fein, L. C. (1999). The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 653–683. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Jentsch, W. (2003). Organisationssoziologie. Eine Einführung. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, C. (2007). Are universities specific organizations? In G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 63–84). Bielefeld: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, C. (2010). The market for academics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G., & Rhoades, G. (1987). The academic estate in Western Europe. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The academic profession. National, disciplinary and institutional settings (pp. 211–270). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nienhüser, W. (2012). Academic Capitalism? Wirtschaftsvertreter in Hochschulräten deutscher Universitäten. Eine organisationstheoretisch fundierte empirische Analyse. In U. Wilkesmann & C. J. Schmid (Eds.), Hochschule als Organisation (pp. 89–112). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ortmann, G. (2005). Organisation, Profession, bootstrapping. In T. Klatetzki & V. Tacke (Eds.), Organisation und Profession (pp. 285–298). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton, D. J., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.2307/258154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. Glencoe: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1991). A society of organizations. Theory and Society, 20(6), 725–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00678095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1993). Complex organizations. A critical essay. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City: Doubleday and.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popp Berman, E., & Paradeise, C. (Eds.). (2016). The university under pressure. Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preisendörfer, P. (2011). Organisationssoziologie: Grundlagen, Theorien und Problemstellungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker: An account of a research program conducted by the western electric company, Hawthorne works, Chicago. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rüegg, W. (Ed.). (2004). A history of the university in Europe. Vol. III: Universities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (1800–1945). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rüegg, W. (Ed.). (2011). A history of the university in Europe. Vol. IV: Universities since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelsky, H. (1963). Einsamkeit und Freiheit. Reinbek: Rowohlt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimank, U. (2001a). Festgefahrene Gemischtwarenläden – Die deutschen Hochschulen als erfolgreich scheiternde Organisationen. In E. Stölting & U. Schimank (Eds.), Die Krise der Universitäten (pp. 223–242). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schimank, U. (2001b). Organisationsgesellschaft. In G. Kneer, A. Nassehi, & M. Schröer (Eds.), Klassische Gesellschaftsbegriffe der Soziologie (pp. 279–307). München: Fink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimank, U. (2005). “New public management” and the academic profession: Reflections on the German situation. Minerva, 43(4), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-005-2472-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. W. (1965). Reactions to supervision in a heteronomous professional organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. W. (1981). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. W. (1982). Managing professional work: Three models of control for health organizations. Health Services Research, 17(3), 213–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. W. (2005). Evolving professions: An institutional field approach. In T. Klatetzki & V. Tacke (Eds.), Organisation und Profession (pp. 119–141). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. W. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. W., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing. Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. New York/London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, J. E., & Sorensen, T. L. (1974). The conflict of professionals in bureaucratic organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stichweh, R. (1994). Akademische Freiheit, Professionalisierung der Hochschule und Politik. In R. Stichweh (Ed.), Wissenschaft, Universitäten, Professionen. Soziologische Analysen (pp. 337–361). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teichler, U., Arimoto, A., & Cummings, W. K. (Eds.). (2013). The changing academic profession: Major findings of a comparative survey. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). Los Angeles/London: Sage Publ.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Türk, K., Lemke, T., & Bruch, M. (2006). Organisation in der modernen Gesellschaft: Eine historische Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walgenbach, P., & Meyer, R. E. (2007). Neoinstitutionalistische Organisationstheorie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters, M. (1989). Collegiality, bureaucratization, and professionalization: A Weberian analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 94(5), 945–972. https://doi.org/10.1086/229109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, M. (1993). Alternative organizational formations: A neo Weberian typology of polycratic administrative systems. The Sociological Review, 41(1), 54–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1993.tb02954.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1976 [1922]). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie (5., rev. Aufl. ed.). Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welpe, I. M., Wollersheim, J., Ringelhan, S., & Osterloh, M. (Eds.). (2015). Incentives and performance. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INCHER-Kassel, Universität Kassel, Kassel, Germany

    Otto Hüther & Georg Krücken

Authors
  1. Otto Hüther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Georg Krücken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hüther, O., Krücken, G. (2018). German Higher Education Institutions as Organizations. In: Higher Education in Germany—Recent Developments in an International Perspective. Higher Education Dynamics, vol 49. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61479-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61479-3_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61478-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61479-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation