Organizational theories explain how organizations function and how they can improve. In higher education, organizational approaches understand colleges and universities' structure, behavior, and decision-making processes. These theories provide valuable frameworks for understanding and improving higher education institutions. By applying these theories, leaders in higher education can develop effective strategies for achieving their goals and ensuring the success of their organizations.   

Learners will learn about diverse administrative theories and organizational models listed below in the module section to describe the implications of the organizational models in the governance and functioning of higher education institutions. It will provide knowledge to the module assessment activity by knowing the models related to the Vietnamne case and identifying which are more predominant and their roles in higher education institutions. 

The Higher Education Structural Theory proposes that universities have two distinct components: the academic core and the administrative shell. The academic core refers to the academic programs, faculty, and students, while the administrative shell includes the non-academic staff and infrastructure necessary for the functioning of the university. This theory suggests that the two components have different priorities and goals, leading to potential conflicts and tensions within universities. Universities were becoming increasingly complex and bureaucratic, with the administrative shell growing faster than the academic core. He suggested that this trend could lead to a shift in priorities away from academic excellence and towards administrative efficiency.

The first structure within the American research university is the academic core, which is composed of a group of faculty guilds that have primary responsibility for the academic content and quality of the enterprise. The collective outcome of each of these regional guilds' effectiveness in attracting and keeping academics is the university's academic status. Because research universities are aware that a university's faculty determines its quality and output, they pay great attention to guild management of academic talent. 

The second structure is an administrative shell, which surrounds and supports the guilds. Specifically, this structure is the university’s management. The administration of the businesses that support the faculty guilds, the procurement and distribution of resources, and communication with boards and other governmental structures that exercise external oversight are all under its purview. The model succinctly demonstrates the connection between the academic core of guilds and the university’s shell. Namely, the shell’s primary responsibility is to find the resources necessary to attract the best faculty members and students.

Read more 

How Universities Work:  Chapter 1 Quality Engines/ How universities work

And, 

BASTEDO, M. N. The Organization of Higher Education: Managing Colleges for a New Era. [s. l.]: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012. ISBN 978-1-4214-0447-9. Disponível em: https://search-ebscohost-com.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED531407&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 12 abr. 2023.

Birnbaum later added an additional model of institutional governance, management, and leadership. 

The Cybernetics Model integrates the collegial, bureacratic, political, and anarchical models. This model emphasizes how communication and control lead to self-correcting mechanisms in an open system. Organizationas monitor and adjust activities through sensing mechanisms and negative feedback systems. These organizations manage themselves, usually without a rational director. Cybernetic leaders pay attention to exceptions, designing system, and problem-solving.

Boleman and Deal's Four-Frame Model considers how different frames of reference and world views shape decisions and actions and outlines four perspectives for understanding organizations and leadership: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. 

The Structural Frame "emphasizes goals and efficiency. It posits that effective organizations define clear goals, differential people into specific roles, and coordinate diverse activities through policies, rules, and chain of command. Structural leaders values analysis and data, keep their eye on the bottom line, set clear directions, hold people accountable for results, and try to solve organizational problems with new policies and rules of through restructuring." (Boleman and Deal, 1991, p. 511).

The Human Resources Frame emphasizes human needs and "assumes that organizations that meet basic human needs will work better than those that do not. Human resource leaders value relationships and feelings; they seek to lead through facilitation and empowerment. They tend to define problems in individual or interpersonal terms and look for ways to adjust the organization to fit people" (Boleman and Deal, 1991, pp. 511-512) or vice versa. 

The Political Frame "views organizations as arenas of continuing conflict and competition among different interests for scarce resources. Political leaders are advocates and negotiators who value realism and pragmatism. They spend much of their time networking, creating coalitions, building a power base, and negotiating compromises" (Boleman and Deal, 1991, p. 512). 

The Symbolic Frame recognizes people's needs for a sense of purpose and meaning in their work. "Organizations develop cultural symbols that shape human behavior [...] and provide a shared sense of mission and identity. Symbolic leaders instill a sense of enthusiasm and commitment through charisma and drama. They pay diligent attention to myth, ritual, ceremony, stories, and other symbolic forms" (Boleman and Deal, 1991 p. 512).

Which models relate to your day-to-day experiences and observations? Why is it important? Understand what’s going around them and why.

Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and conflict in the university: Research in the sociology of complex organizations. John Wiley & Sons.

Birnbaum, R. (1989). The cybernetic institution: Toward an integration of governance theories. Higher Education, 239-253.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi‐frame, multi‐sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30(4), 509-534.

Kerr, C. (1963). The uses of the university. Harvard University Press.

Lombardi, J. V. (2013). How universities work. JHU Press.

Marginson, S. (2007). Clark Kerr's visionary theory of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 126-151.