Conclusions

As I discuss in the Chapters 2 and 4, and indicate in the Chapter 5, it seems that the university management in this case study is changing from bureaucracy and collegial decision making towards managerialism. I illustrate and describe the management change and the organisational transformation through CdA apply-ing a process view in Figure 13.

Figure 13: CDA describing the management change and the organisational chan-ge in the case study

1998

Emergence Hegemony Recontextualization

Operationalization

The new discourse reflecting a managerialism ideology emerges in 1998. The discourse surrounding demands for autonomy within universities emerges in 2002, because universities are seen as being manageable as state-bureaucracies in the global environment. Public criticism towards the Finnish university insti-tute emerges in 2004, and strengthens further in 2005, furthermore emphasising structural renewals in 2006, as I illustrate in Figure 13.

Management procedures are emphasised in universities, particularly when the new employees’ pay scheme is introduced in 2006. Supervisors are identified within the university organisation and a novel performance appraisal structure with supervisor-subordinate discussions is introduced.

There are full time managers in a contemporary university organisation, which means, according to the rector’s discourse, that teachers and researchers are able to concentrate on their core missions. Thus, the university organisation is supposed to gain effectiveness and competitiveness. The emergent discourse of managerialism has become hegemonic.

The positioning of the university in a local context changes during this longi-tudinal study. The management discourse in the transforming university organi-sation in this case study is re-contextualised at the local and national level. At the end of 1990s and at the beginning of the new millennium, the regional policy themes are discussed frequently in the rector’s speeches. But when the discourse concerning the major university reform begins in 2006, the themes concerning regional policy in the context of university organisation are not mentioned.

From 2006 onwards the university is positioned discursively by the rector in his speeches more as an active player or subject in the local area. The university acts as a partner with local stakeholders; business and start-up entrepreneurs.

The university is not only discussed as an object of national regional policy.

The process approach is illustrated in Figure 13 though the timeline is not divided equally on a yearly basis. The years 2005, 2006 and 2007 contain revo-lutionary changes in the case university, therefore time is seen as socially con-structed through human action, and illustrated as event-based (see also Figures 9-12) (Orlikowksi & Yates 2002, 684). The active role of the rector in this study is recognised in shaping the temporal features of the university organisation, while also being aware of the way in which the rector’s actions are shaped by conditions outside his immediate control, in line with Orlikowski & Yates (2002, 684).

In the transforming university organisation, the donation funds are a very important source of resources. due to the major university reform in 2010, the universities have broad financial autonomy. The government will continue to guarantee sufficient core funding tied to the rise in costs for the universities.

In addition, the universities are able to apply for competed public funding and use the revenue from their business ventures, donations and bequeathals and the return on their capital for financing their operations. The crucial element for the success of the contemporary university is that the local stakeholders sup-port the basic funding of the university as well as operate as a partner within the projects.

After the major university reform, the universities are able to pursue inde-pendent human resources policies and improve their attractiveness as an employ-er. The strategy of the new university organisation stresses innovative recruiting.

Novel risk taking and less bureaucracy in recruiting the future top researchers and teachers are emphasised. Professionals with new ideas and inner motivation that is strong enough to make progress in the science world are to be found us-ing novel strategic recruitment strategies. The recruitment of the international researchers and teachers will become an everyday procedure in the future.

Student recruitment is changing. There is competition for new students. The question within a contemporary university is how to attract good new students and where to find these new students.

The attractiveness of the local area is essential for recruiting new students and staff to the university. University students and professionals have impacts on the local area and business. The benefits gained by cooperation between the university and its stakeholders are reciprocal. The university students and profes-sionals provide input to the local environment, business and cultural life through internships, projects, research, and as customers.

The operationalisation of management change discourse occurs through the merger and the university reform. The strategic choice of the merger of the two university organisations in eastern Finland was made in order to sustain the international level research university. To be a research university organisation enables the continuum of university professionalism in eastern Finland. This is interpreted as motivating researches and teachers to commit to the transforming university organisation. The strategic choice of the merger and the aim to be an international research university confirms the organisational ability to carry out the basic mission of the university. As a consequence, the strategic choice sustains university professionalism.

There is a need for cooperation across campuses and disciplines in the new university. Knowledge should be shared and combined into innovative and novel perspectives in order to solve actual problems in society, which are multidiscipli-nary in nature. The enabling effect of trust is the key for cooperation. On the basis of research by Coleman (1988, 101), a group in which there is trust and trustwor-thiness is able to accomplish much more than a comparable group without trust or trustworthiness .

Trust is built in the university organisation by establishing and maintaining fair and equal organisational practices. When the organisational practices such as management procedures, organisational norms, information sharing, communi-cation and interaction within the organisation are tailored in a way to build and retain trust ‘the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expecta-tions of the intenexpecta-tions or behaviour of another’ (Rousseau et al. 1998) increases and leads to cooperation. Trust may be seen as a form of social and cultural capital in a transforming university.

6 Trust development process in a transforming university organisation

I shall discuss the trust development process in the context of a merger between two university organisations next. The action of the merger, as ’a leap of faith’

(Möllering 2006), shows that there is a willingness to be vulnerable between the two university organisations. In the case study two universities invest trust in their relationship and take risks. The cooperation entails trust. Trust on the other hand develops and grows through cooperation and interaction.

The common interest of being a competitive international research university in eastern Finland bonds the two university organisations. The nature of the com-petition that universities face is discussed in the framework of five competitive forces by Porter (1990). The competitiveness of research universities is measured, for example, by rankings. Therefore, I describe the theme of rankings in the rec-tor’s discourse in this chapter.

I interpret the trust development process in the rector’s speeches and in an interview with the rector. On the basis of the rector’s speech, the university com-munity and stakeholders form expectations about the intentions and behaviour of the two university organisations and the transforming university organisation.

I describe the trust development process by combining two models. The trust de-velopment process between the two university organisations, as in a cooperative inter-organisational relationship, is described by applying the model of Lewicki

& Bunker (1996) to the framework presented by Ring & Van de Ven (1994).

The university rector as a manager in a ‘professional bureaucracy’ (Minzberg 1983) plays a key role in the trust development process in the transforming uni-versity organisation. I discuss the basis of trust in the rector and the power of the rector at the end of this Chapter 6.