ABSTRACT
The word ‘management’ has negative connotations for many academics working in higher education. It represents a shift away from the ancient ideal of university life as a free-associating collective of individuals and towards a centralization of executive power based on market principles (Halsey, 1992). Academic management, traditionally characterized in terms of consensus and collegiality and the sharing of decision making, has given way to ‘new managerialism’ (Dearlove, 1995). Managerial power has increasingly replaced the traditional autonomy of academics to govern their own affairs. University vice-chancellors are now routinely compared with corporate chief executives. Some even adopt the title. While the word ‘administration’ denotes a benign and neutral exercise of authority, the term ‘management’ is associated, by many in academia, with more directive and less consensual decision-making processes paying closer attention to market forces. Nevertheless, the term represents a very real change in the relationship of universities to the societies they serve. Increasingly, universities must compete as educational providers in an environment in which national governments regard higher education institutions as instruments of their exacting social and economic policy. The communications revolution means that universities now compete more internationally for students and research income both with each other and with a growing number of corporate education and independent training providers. However, the notion of universities as self-regulating communities still has strong roots which continue to exert a powerful influence within
certain institutions, such as the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, where controversies regarding the reform of governance structures have raged in recent years.
