RÉSUMÉ
Cette recherche s’appuie sur une synthèse des rapports officiels produits par des parties prenantes clés du monde universitaire et vise à déterminer si une organisation pluraliste telle que l'université peut évoluer vers une configuration post-bureaucratique. Basée sur l'expérience québécoise, le design de la recherche intègre l'analyse de contenu et l'analyse discursive en lien avec la perspective constructiviste de la théorie des configurations. Les universités québécoises ont progressivement été amenées à former une configuration par sédimentation, combinant les schémas interprétatifs de la social-démocratie et de rationalisation financière. Cette cohabitation est difficile, voire fragile, mais nécessaire pour établir un consensus sur des principes communs pour guider la mission universitaire. L'évolution vers une configuration post-bureaucratique nécessiterait : une diversité de profils de professeurs, un renouvellement des rôles d'administrateurs locaux et de nouveaux partenariats avec des représentants de l'industrie. Enfin, sont identifiées certaines conditions conduisant à une configuration post-bureaucratique sans perturber les consensus existants.
Mots clés : Organisation pluraliste, universités du Québec, Gouvernement, administrateurs,
ABSTRACT
This research based on a synthesis of official reports produced by key stakeholders in the academic world aims at determining if a pluralist organization such as the university can evolve towards a post-bureaucratic configuration. Based on the experience of Québec, the research design integrates content analysis and discourse analysis in connection with the constructivist perspective of configuration theory. Québec universities have gradually been led to form a configuration by sedimentation, combining the interpretative schemes of social democracy and financial rationalization. This coexistence is difficult, even fragile, but necessary to establish a consensus on common principles to guide the mission of the university. Moving towards a post-bureaucratic configuration would require: a diversity of teacher profiles, a renewal of the roles of local administrators and new partnerships with representatives of the industry. Finally, certain conditions leading to a post-bureaucratic configuration without disturbing existing consensus are identified.
Keywords: Pluralistic organization, Québec universities, Government, administrators,
INTRODUCTION
Today, universities are at the heart of reflections and questions on their place within what the Organization for Economic and Cooperation Development (OECD) experts tend to designate “the knowledge economy and the production of knowledge” (Côté & Furlong, 2016; Krücken, Kosmützky, & Torka, 2007; Milot, 2003). Thus, according to the OECD, the reconfiguration of universities, began in the 1990s, became necessary due to the new tendencies observed in most industrialized countries, notably the rising costs of higher education as a proportion of national economies and due to the minimal benefits for industry and the labour market as a whole. Consequently, OECD experts call for the development of institutional partnerships and university entrepreneurship so that the production of new knowledge and innovations can positively affect the economy of nations (Gibbons et al., 1994).
Related to these reflections, a number of researchers have put forward the concept of post- bureaucracy to signify the need for institutions, such as the university, to evolve towards enhanced flexibility, more entrepreneurship and greater openness to the external environment (Grey & Garsten, 2001; Johnson et al., 2009; Rapoliéné, & Jakubé, 2015). The concept of post-bureaucracy has been defined in various ways: as a new organizational model based on empowerment, fluidity in decisional processes, and a working environment rooted in collaborative effort work, rather than on a hierarchy (Rapoliéné & Jakubé, 2015); as
managerial rhetoric aiming to introduce subtler forms of control (Alvesson & Thompson,
2005; McKenna, Garcia-Lorenzo, & Bridgman 2010; Rhodes & Price, 2010); and as a global
tendency towards the adoption of new structures and new principles of management without
assuming a universal model of organization and of governance (Budd, 2007; Grey & Garsten, 2001).
At a time when, at an international level, there is profound questioning and rethinking of the role of universities (Haroun, 2013), it seems that it is important and relevant to analyze the trajectories of change of the university to determine whether this tends towards the reconfiguration hoped for by international experts. The case of Québec is particularly
interesting given its long pursuit—described as a “Quiet Revolution” of the modernization of the state and the adoption of a social democratic vision within institutions of higher education (Bélanger, Comeau, & Métivier, 2000). At the start of the 1980s and following the trend of the New Public Management the questions of university costs and performance became more central. This resulted in a social crisis stemming from the intention of the Québec government to raise tuition fees.
Despite the importance of these events and these trends, there is currently little empirical research on the type of configuration adopted by academia in Québec in the course of its evolution. Thus, is this an evolution towards a post-bureaucratic configuration within which the social democratic vision initiated in the wake of “the Quiet Revolution” of the 1960s can cohabit with the performative approach stemming from the New Public Management of the 1980s? To respond to this question, this study will adopt the configuration perspective advanced by Greenwood and Hinings (1988, 1993).
A number of authors (Demers, 2007; Short, Payne, & Ketchen, 2008) note that, despite its promising potential for empirical research, few studies have renewed interest in the concept of organizational configuration. The constructivist character of the perspective proposed by Greenwood and Hinings (1988, 1993) will allow to bring to the forefront the discourse of four meta-stakeholders from academia (governmental authorities, university administrators, faculty, and students) during three key moments of change and, thus, to take into account the evolution of configurations adopted by the Québec university institution.
This paper is structured as follows: first, a summary of the recent debates on the concepts of pluralistic organization and post-bureaucracy will be presented; this will be followed by the theoretical framework and the research approach based on the Québec experience as a case study. Subsequently, the main results presented as areas of agreement and disagreement between the stakeholders will be highlighted, and we will end with a discussion and a conclusion on the implications, limitations and contributions of the present research.
BACKGROUND OF THIS STUDY
Recent debates on pluralistic organization and post-bureaucracy
In theoretical terms, this study intends to develop the perspective of Greenwood and Hinings (1988, 1993) through taking into account the most recent debates on the concepts of pluralistic organizations (Jarzabkowski & Fenton, 2006; Denis, Langley & Rouleau, 2007; Van Gestel & Hillebrand, 2011) and what a number of authors refer to as a post-bureaucratic configuration (Budd, 2007; Parker, & Bradley, 2004; Johnson et al., 2009; Josserand, Teo, & Clegg, 2006).
It appears that the very manner of conceptualizing the university has changed (Krücken, Kosmützky, & Torka, 2007; Côté & Furlong, 2016). Initially defined by Mintzberg (1982) as a professional bureaucracy which stressed the autonomous action of professionals and defined as an oligarchy. Several authors (Jarzabkowski & Fenton, 2006; Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007; Van Gestel & Hillebrand, 2011) currently believe rather that the university would thus define itself more as a pluralistic organization with an emphasis on the collective character of decision-making. A key characteristic of pluralistic organization is the strong interrelationship of a plurality of stakeholders, each with sufficient influence to orient the organization’s goals and end results. This type of organization presents particular challenges in terms of the conception of strategies, both internally and externally (Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007, 2010; Jarzabkowski & Fenton, 2006; Musselin, 2006), in particular in the context of change (Rhodes & Price, 2010). The notion of a pluralistic organization has been mostly examined empirically in the field of health, especially in hospitals (Denis et al., 2011; Lozeau, Langley, & Denis, 2002) but very much less in universities.
Many authors suggest that having the academic institution evolve towards a post- bureaucratic configuration—defined as flexible, more entrepreneurial, open to industry and favouring decentralization and the empowerment of individuals—would make it better equipped to respond and adapt to the new requirements of an unstable and changing environment (Bolin & Härenstam, 2008; Côté & Furlong, 2016; Maravelias, 2003; Stokes &
Clegg, 2002) and being more accountable to their social and economic environment. So, the question is how a pluralistic organization like the university could evolve towards a post- bureaucratic type of configuration. The concept of a post-bureaucratic configuration is rather difficult to define. Certain authors insisting on its entrepreneurial nature, others adding nuances in focussing more on the nature of the empowerment of human resources (Johnson et al., 2009; Maravelias, 2003, 2009; McKenna, Garcia-Lorenzo & Bridgman 2010). However, there are also others who see a direct link to the trend of New Public Management. A number of authors (Budd, 2007; Byrkjeflot & du Gay, 2012; Clegg, 2012) believe that it is simplistic to pose a stark contrast between bureaucracy and post-bureaucracy. They prefer to speak of a continuum in the forms and contours of modern bureaucracies. Empirical research to date has examined the public sector in the broadest sense (Budd, 2007; Harris & Wegg-Prosser, 2007; Josserand, Teo & Clegg, 2006; Parker & Bradley, 2004) and mostly neglected the application of this concept to the area of higher education and universities.
Research Objectives
In light of these recent developments, this research has a threefold objective: first, bringing to light the importance of stakeholders’ discourse in the type of configuration adopted by an institution such as the university; then, showing how, through this discourse, the interdependence amongst the actors themselves affects the evolution of a pluralistic institution such as the university; and, finally, establishing whether the trajectory of change tends towards a post-bureaucratic configuration, that is, a configuration flexible in its decision-making processes, more open and adapted to its external environment, and favouring the empowerment of its human resources.
Functionalist and Constructivist Perspectives on Configurations
In this section, the functionalist and constructivist perspectives on configurations will be compared to highlight the specificities of the latter. Then, the principal concepts associated with the theoretical perspective of configurations advanced by Greenwood and Hinings which will be drawn upon in the context of this research will be presented. Amongst all the
theories of organizational change presented by Demers (2007), configuration theories, which were quite present in the literature, introduce the notion of discontinuity and non-linearity to characterize the evolution of organizations.
Thus, the functionalist perspective of configuration theory (Demers, 2007; Miller & Friesen, 1984; Tushman & Romanelli, 1985) considers change as a rare and radical phenomenon. The organization is envisaged as a large collection of strongly interrelated dimensions, grouped into a coherent and multidimensional model, which comprises the configuration. In so doing, an important change at the heart of the configuration often requires a revolution called
quantum change (Miller & Freisen, 1980; Miller 1987; Tushman & Romanelli, 1985).
According to the functionalist perspective, radical or revolutionary changes are initiated at the strategic summit of the organization which is particularly sensitive to pressures and the environmental context (Demers, 2007; Lalonde, 2008). While distancing itself from contingency theory, this perspective puts special emphasis on structural characteristics, and it is the consistency of these characteristics which gives shape to a configuration (Demers, 2007).
Other authors (Greenwood & Hinings, 1988; Pettigrew, 1990) support the idea of evolutionary tracks or a more complex change of configurations. For instance, according to Pettigrew’s longitudinal perspective (1990), the notion of time constitutes a significant passage from one configuration to another, and the adoption of a longitudinal approach allows us to view change from a holistic and non-episodic perspective, with no clearly defined beginning and end. For his part, Pichault (2011) introduces the notion of periods of
change to signify the emergence into the public space of a new discursive corpus, brought
about by a key actor in an organizational configuration, which gives rise to a possible revision of prevailing interpretative schemes.
Thus, existing interpretative schemes are questioned and, in turn, stakeholders may indicate their agreement or disagreement with the emerging discourse (Cunningham, 2006; Iverson, 1996; Lines, 2004). In pluralistic organizations, within which diverse types of interdependent stakeholders with varying viewpoints on change evolve (Jarzabkowski & Fenton, 2006),
there are a number of possible paths for change (Lejeune & Vas, 2011). This gives rise to the notion of organizational tracks or trajectories, bringing us back to movement or the absence of movement between archetypes and, notably, allows us to identify and explain the nature and cause of these movements and of their absence (Greenwood & Hinings, 1988).
Contrary to the functionalist view, there are many evolutionary paths within the time frame of an existing configuration. So that change may come from anywhere in the organization and not necessarily from its strategic summit. From this constructivist perspective of configurations, the process of change is related to the linking and delinking of various interpretative schemes (Bartunek, 1984; Cooper et al., 1996) adopted or rejected by stakeholders over time; so that it is difficult to foresee the end result of the change (and, therefore, the type of configuration) since the trajectories of change are the result of more or less consistent analytical positions, which are closer or more distant in cognitive terms (Schmitt, Fabbri & Gallais, 2011).
The Key Concepts of the Constructivist Perspective on Configurations
Having contrasted the functionalist and constructivist approaches to configuration theories, it is possible to identify four key concepts advanced by Greenwood and Hinings in their theory of configuration: the interpretative schemes; the engagement of stakeholders; the analytical position; and the trajectories of change as presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Theoretical framework - Configuration of university
Source: Longitudinal perspective (Pettigrew, 1990), periods of change (Pichault, 2011).
Interpretative schemes
The concept of an interpretative scheme corresponds to the system of values and beliefs prevailing in stakeholders’ discourse, which gives a certain consistency to the organizational configuration. The works of Bartunek (1984) and Cooper et al., (1996) have allowed to comprehend the importance of these interpretative schemes in understanding human discourse and behaviour, notably in the contexts of change. Also characterized by Bartunek (1984) as “provinces of meanings”, these interpretative schemes serve to legitimize the processes and structures established within organizations. This system of values is determined by what Miller (1987) refers to as “configurational imperatives.” In the case of Québec universities, these imperatives or configurational positions are determined by the
Main interpretative scheme (configurational axes)
(Bartunek, 1984; Cooper et al., 1996) • Accessibility • Decentralization • Democratization • Autonomy Characteristics of pluralistic organization
(Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007; Jarzabkowski & Fenton, 2006) • Interdependency between multiple
stakeholders • Power dispersed • Divergent goals Engagement of stakeholders (Cunningham, 2006; Iverson, 1996; Lines, 2004) • Status quo • Relorm-minded • Competitive • Indifferent Analytical position
(Schmitt, Fabbri, & Gallais, 2011) • Coherence • Embryonic coherence • Schizoid incoherence Trajectory of change
(Lejeune & Vas, 2011; Mannion et al., 2009) • Inertia
• Reorientation • Unresolved change • Aborted change
initial configuration, that is, the meaning given by the stakeholders to the values of accessibility, decentralization, democracy and autonomy of action.
Engagement of stakeholders
The notion of stakeholders’ engagement in a process of change has been the focus of much empirical research (Cunningham, 2006; Iverson, 1996; Lines, 2004) which has all taken the same approach: stakeholders’ engagement through their acceptance of and commitment to a process of change, is quite central to the shift from one organizational configuration to another. In that respect, Greenwood and Hinings (1993) identify the involvement of stakeholders in existing and/or alternative interpretative schemes as a key dynamic in a change of configuration. It is via their commitment to a collection of values and ideas (interpretative schemes) that the stakeholders can influence the evolutionary trajectory of the organizational configuration within which they evolve.
According to Greenwood and Hinnings (1988), four models of engagement can be identified: a generalized adherence to an existing interpretative scheme (status quo); a generalized adherence to an alternative interpretative scheme (reform); substantial support for two or more different interpretative schemes (competitive); or weak adherence to an existing or an alternative interpretative scheme (indifference).
Analytical position
The analytical position refers to the notion of cognitive proximity introduced by Schmitt, Fabbri, & Gallais (2011) and alludes to the construction of a common meaning amongst the parties, beyond each individual’s or group’s particularities. The analytical position of the configuration is, thus, established according to the convergence of points of view expressed through the discourse of stakeholders in an eventual change of configuration. According to Greenwood and Hinings (1988), three analytical positions can be identified in a configuration: configuration coherence which reinforces an interpretative scheme; configuration of embryonic coherence of an archetype which reflects the ideas and values of
an emergent interpretative scheme; and schizoid incoherence which reflects a tension between two or several collections of ideas and contradictory values.
Trajectories of change
The notion of a trajectory of change aims to characterize the nature of the movement or absence of movement amongst configurations. This notion has been picked up again in the empirical work of Lejeune and Vas (2011) to describe the identity processes of management schools in the context of a process supposed to lead to EQUIS university accreditation, thus for Mannion et al., (2009) to characterize the change of organizational culture of senior hospital managers in the English system (NHS).This notion allows to consider not only “successful” changes but also those which were not completed or were aborted.
According to Greenwood and Hinings (1988), the evolution from one configuration to another can occur through four different trajectories which are: inertia, reorientation, unresolved change; and aborted change. This identification is not restrictive; the authors themselves recognize some variations even within the “reorientation” type of trajectories, which could follow a linear progression, one by oscillations or one which is delayed.
THE QUÉBEC EXPERIENCE
The system of higher education in Canada falls under provincial jurisdiction (Fisher et al., 2006; Kirby, 2011). There are ten (10) provinces in Canada including Québec. Québec universities are public institutions: they are within the public domain and are financed in part by the state (Lucier, 2006). Québec universities are distinctive in that they are francophone, with a history strongly influenced by Catholic values and by Québec’s Quiet Revolution which brought it into the modern world (Bélanger, Comeau, & Métivier, 2000). Moreover, Québec can pride itself on having amongst the lowest tuition fees in Canada for all three university levels, undergraduate, master’s and doctoral programs (Statistics Canada, 2016). At the same time, Québec universities have experienced difficulties similar to those of other comparable institutions around the world (Côté & Furlong, 2016; Krücken, Kosmützky, &
Torka, 2007), notably a rapid rise in costs leading to the adoption of neo-liberal values (Fisher, Scott-Metcalfe, & Field, 2016; Larner & Le Heron, 2005). Certain analysts stress that the Québec University seems to be having difficulties defining its vision for its own future (Rhéaume, 2000). Bertrand and Busugutsala (1995) have contended that there is no “well-crafted portrait of the Québec university institution of today, and even less a duly accepted frame of reference”.
Based on the above, and following the approach and criteria defined by Yin (2014) and Miles et al., (2014), the Québec case is typical and respects the principle of the theoretical representation of a qualitative case study on the evolution of university configurations.
Three Specific Periods of Change
Pettigrew (1990) suggests that the breaking points in the life of an organization constitute key reference points to justify the beginning and ending of the process of change under study. In closely following the various reforms initiated by the Québec government, it is possible to define three main moments of change, each corresponding to a managerial intention to change (Pichault, 2011; Thiétart, 1999) and giving rise to distinctive discursive fields. These three periods are: 1) the Royal Commission on Education (referred to as the Parent
Commission), hereinafter referred to as the period 1 (1960-1980) in the reformist state; 2) the Commission des États généraux sur l’éducation [the Estates General Commission on
Education] and the adoption of a Québec policy of university financing, hereinafter referred to as period 2 (1980-2012) of the rationalizing state; and finally 3) the Sommet sur
l’enseignement supérieur [the Summit on Higher Education], giving rise to various projects,
hereinafter referred to as period 3 (2012-present) of the conciliatory state.
A Discursive Analysis on Change of Four Meta-Stakeholders