Internationalization at Dutch Universities: Institutional pressure and Organizational strategy

(1)

Internationalization at Dutch Universities:

Institutional pressure and Organizational strategy

Master´s Thesis MSc Business Administration Organizational and Management Control

Faculty of Economics and Business University of Groningen

Name: Michiel Fiévez Student number: s2323559 Supervisor: Dr. E.G. van de Mortel

Date: 18th_{of July 2018}

(2)

Abstract

This paper investigates the influence of organizational strategy on the way Dutch universities deal with the internationalization of the higher education, when also affected by institutional pressures. Where the organizational strategy of an university serves to support the reaction of the institution to the organizational change and institutional pressures. By conducting interviews within two groups of universities, the low and high internationalization universities, we examine the influence of the universities strategy and the institutional pressures on how the university deals with the internationalization of the higher education. The results show that both institutional pressure and organizational strategy influence the internationalization at Dutch universities. With a clear distinction between the low and high internationalization university groups. This paper also looked for and found evidence supporting the relationship between institutional pressure and organizational strategy. With isomorphic pressures, like expert groups, influencing the development of university strategy and public value creation strategies enabling universities to influence the pressures exerted by their environment.

(3)

1. Introduction

“Is the internationalization of Dutch universities uncontrollable?”, is what NOS Nieuwsuur (2017)

headlines on the 4th of September 2017. By which they refer to the growth of international student numbers over the past ten year, from 14.904 students in 2007 to 48.507 students in 2017 (VSNU, 2017). With internationalization providing an important learning experience for students as well as academics at higher education institutions. While the universities generally are positive about this development, we also are starting to see increasingly more questions concerning this fast growth. Because where is the limit? How many students do we want to educate in the Netherlands? Is this internationalization actually desirable?

The Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg (ISO) recognizes the danger this rapid growth outlines.

“We are scared that for universities mostly the finances are leading when choosing for international students, and not the content” (p. 1), says chairman van der Dong (NOS, 2017). According to her,

universities are thinking to lightly about internationalization. “It requires investing, training, and

guidance, now too often it happens thoughtless and careless, and that ultimately hurts the teachers and students” (NOS, 2017, p. 1). Therefore internationalization ensures significant change to the work that

academics do, the organization in which they operate, and the whole higher education field. Its broad implications thus cannot be underestimated by HEIs. Because universities move towards international relationships with partner universities and try to adopt the latest technologies available to support these relationships, the academic staff of these HEIs need deal with those increasingly restrictive developments when constructing new programs (Shapper and Mayson, 2004). Besides the impact of internationalisation on the university’s operating, it also has become an important opportunity for them. Therefore internationalization can now be seen as a strategic corporate activity, that delivers HEIs an extra stream of non-governmental funding and the opportunity to expand their practices across national borders (Welch, 2002).

(6)

Although the criticism surrounding internationalization has increased during the last year, we should not forget its importance. Due to the emergence of globalization, it is important that internationalization is not merely be seen as an additional “nice to add” advantage, but as an attractive intention to develop the global higher education landscape (Board, 2017). Therefore within higher education worldwide, engagement with the idea of internationalization has become of real importance (Brandenburg and de Wit, 2011). There are several different reasons why internationalization contributes to the universities goal of increasing quality, and therefore rising attraction to outside stakeholders. For instance, the opportunity to develop research relationships across national boundaries, the benefit of cultural diversity for both students and staff, and the increased knowledge base through a more diverse input (Shapper and Mayson, 2004). Consequently, within universities internationalisation is considered to be one of the most significant aspects of their organizational strategy, with more than 50 percent of the HEIs worldwide already having an distinctive internationalisation policy or strategy (Hudson, 2014).

For students, the knowledge of international cultures and issues that internationalization provides is regarded as the most significant benefits, while for institutions, international students contribute to the international character of the programs and facilitates an ambitious study climate (VSNU, 2017). Therefore it is no surprise that within universities, student mobility and international research collaboration between international partner institutions are the internationalisation activities with the highest-priority (Hudson, 2014). Hereby, education and research have to be less and less restricted by borders, in order to guarantee the fundamental contribution of education and research to a knowledge economy, through which the competitiveness of the Netherlands and Europe can be strengthen (PNO, 2017). This is especially important for the Netherlands because of its international knowledge economy. The international students of today are the CEO’s, scientists and diplomats of the future, their future relations are of vital importance for the Netherlands (VSNU, 2016). Hence by studying abroad for six months or by conducting international research, those involved can learn a great deal about what characterizes their own country and what binds their countries together, providing them the tools to deal with the increasing globalization (Rijksoverheid, 2017).

(7)

As the process of internationalization has grown in importance, so have the challenges for HEIs to implement this development within their everyday educational practices (Burbules and Torres, 2000; Brooks and Normore, 2010). One of these challenges arises from the historical focus of universities to contribute to their local environment, while HEIs now have to combine both global and local context when developing educational practices. With as end goal to prepare students to operate in a global world, though the contact with and understanding of other cultures, languages, and issues (AAC and U, 2008; Altbach, 2006; Bartell, 2003; CCSSO, 2011). To achieve this goal, internationalisation has become a popular organisational change strategy for HEIs, as an explicit attempt to instil international perspectives into the core organizational operations (Altbach and Knight, 2007; Knight, 2004).

Skille (2011) states that organizations are not autonomous units isolated from the rest of their societal environment, but mixtures of rational, natural and open systems. Therefore, the characteristics of the interactions between universities and their national and international stakeholders, are influenced by the regional and cultural factors, among others, and thus should be considered by the higher education leaders (Reed, 1999). Scott (2003) described it as: “Where environments shape, support, and

infiltrate organizations, and where organizations are participants embedded in wider material-resource and institutional environments” (p. 29). This environment can also be called the institutional

field, which surrounds a network of organizations operating in the same industry, defined by their shared norms and values. Rather than their rational and technical focus as under the contingency and resource dependence theories, institutional theory emphasize the significance of the social and cultural coming from the environment (Donaldson 1995; Oliver 1991). With Meyer and Rowan (1977) identifying that organizations acquire legitimacy, stability, and resources by conforming to these societal expectations. Consequently, in order for HEIs to have a big impact within the higher education system, policies conforming to these institutional expectations have developed from ad-hoc to a more fundamental scope (Teichler, 2009; Brandenburg and de Wit, 2011).

Following this development, internationalization has made universities more depended on pressures from international culture and government (Marginson, 2006). Lumby and Foskett (2016) emphasize that the push for internationalization observable in all HEIs, needs to be followed by a critical analysis of the organizational consequences it produces. Internationalization within higher education is no one-size-fits all approach, but rather it can be seen as an general term for various specific issues (Callan, 2000). By university leaders, internationalization is often perceived as a ‘win–win’ for all students and practices resulting from international relationships (Knight, 2007). Lumby and Foskett (2016) conclude that: “the issues raised by a more critical analysis pose significant ethical, cultural

and hence strategic questions for university leaders” (p. 95). Therefore, developing ways to increase

(8)

1.1 Research question

This paper aims to provide insights into the influence of institutional pressures on an organizational change, through an explanatory research. More specifically, it tries to uncover how the organizational strategy influences the way organizations deal with this change, that is affected by the institutional environment. This is done by investigating the internationalization at Dutch universities, the institutional pressures present in this and the influence of the university's strategies. Thereby also reviewing the relationship between institutional pressure and organizational strategy. To this end, the following research question is posed:

“How do institutional pressures and organizational strategy influence the internationalization at Dutch universities?”

The following sub-questions will help us answer the main research question: 1. What is the current state of the internationalization at Dutch universities?

2. What is institutional pressure and what does it looks like w.r.t. internationalization?

3. What is organizational strategy and what differences can be identified between universities? 4. How do the university´s experience the isomorphic pressures w.r.t. internationalization? 5. How do the university´s strategies influence their internationalization?

6. What is the relationship between institutional pressure and organizational strategy?

1.2 Academic and societal contribution

This research contributes to academic literature in two ways. First, research investigating institutional pressures in the public sector is still relatively limited. This is despite the fact that Frumkin and Galaskiewicz (2004) already showed that public organizations might even be more susceptible to institutional pressures than firms from the private sector. By investigating internationalization through an institutional lens, this paper aims to add to the literature on institutional theory in the public sector. Many institutional theory papers focus on the homogenization of organizations over time (Deephouse, 1996; Frumkin and Galaskiewicz, 2004; Codagnone, Misuraca, Savoldelli and Lupianez-Villanueva, 2015), investigating how practices become more and more alike. By examining the interplay between the organizational strategy and institutional pressures, and their influence on organizational change, this research serves as an addition to the above-mentioned gap.

(9)

Next to the theoretical contribution, this paper can also be of societal interest. By investigating the influence of institutional pressures on organizational change and strategy, insights can be gained into how universities are able to react to change by implementing the best strategy. This could serve to inform policy makers who intend to react to environmental change, by deploying policy in a way that fits best with their own institutional environment.

1.3 Structure of the paper

(10)

2. Context

This section starts by providing some background information on the educational system in the Netherlands, related to the universities. Furthermore, an overview of the fourteen Dutch universities and their characteristics is provided. The chapter ends with an outline of the current process of internationalization at universities.

2.1 Dutch educational system

The political responsibility for the education system in the Netherlands lies with the ministry OCW, that must adhere to national legislation: Higher Education and Research Act, the WHW. The Ministry OCW is largely responsible for funding its education, defines the general education policy, and, in general, defines the admission requirements, structure and objectives of education. However, at all levels of education (primary, secondary and higher education) the general tendency is less regulation, which means that institutions themselves can bear responsibility for the implementation of government policy (Nuffic, 2011). The teaching language is Dutch, but under the influence of the Bologna process (1999) more and more courses are offered in English.

In the Dutch educational system, higher education is a form of education that follows the secondary education, when the students are around the age of 18. It includes higher professional education that is taught at colleges of higher education and scientific education that is taught at universities. Academic education is mainly focused on scientific research: new discoveries or confirmation of earlier discoveries. Higher professional education is mainly focused on the application of existing scientific knowledge in society and business. A distinction is made at both universities and colleges, the disciplines are subdivided into alpha (e.g. languages and history), beta (e.g. physics) and gamma (e.g. business administration) sciences. This classification has its historical roots in the organization of universities, and the professionalization of science as it has taken place in the nineteenth century in particular (UU, 2018).

(11)

possibility to obtain the degree of doctor. Anyone who has successfully completed a course in higher education is entitled to hold an academic title in the program's own name. The titles are obtained by operation of law and can only be used if it has actually been obtained, otherwise using it is punishable.

2.2 Dutch universities

Because this paper focuses on the internationalization at Dutch universities, we will only look at these higher education institutions in this study. In the Netherlands there are fourteen public universities, some key information about them can be seen in the table 1 below (Chiong Meza, 2012; VSNU, 2017).

Table 1

Between the fourteen universities, the Open University is the most distinct from the rest. Besides the fact that it is the youngest university in the Netherlands, it also has no one fixed location such as all the other universities. It is characterized by the mission of delivering innovative lifelong higher distance education (Rathenau Institute, 2012). Although it makes the Open University unique from the rest, this learning from home aspect also is the reason for excluding it from our research. Because it would be impossible to compare the internationalization at the other (traditional) universities with that of the Open University.

2.3 Internationalization Dutch universities

(12)

This phenomenon entails the growing number of English educations, and therefore also logically the decrease of Dutch-only educations, provided within the universities of the Netherlands. Knowing these two most important characteristics of the internationalization of the universities, the paper is now providing an overview of the number of international students, in table 2 below (VSNU, 2017).

Table 2

In the table above, we present an overview of the Dutch universities and the number of students in the year 2017. From this total number of students, the percentage of international students is provided, as well as a division between EU and non-EU international students. The numbers of the anglicization of the higher education, are provided in the next table (3) below (VSNU, 2017).

Table 3

(13)

(14)

3. Theoretical framework

This section starts by reviewing the literature on the concepts of internationalization, institutional pressure, and organizational strategy. Furthermore, the relation between institutional pressures and the process of internationalization is made. Subsequently, the link between organizational strategy and internationalization is treated. Lastly, we look at the relationship between institutional pressures and organizational strategy. The theoretical framework ends with a conceptual model, visualizing the relations between all these concepts.

3.1 Internationalization

Among scholars and practitioners in the higher education field, there is a broad agreement that internationalization can no longer be seen as a possible option but that it has become an urgent necessity for HEIs (Mestenhauser, 2005). The 2005 International Association of Universities (IAU) survey presented evidence of this urgency, by revealing that the vast majority of university leaders globally see internationalization as utmost importance. Thus this has let internationalization become one of the driving forces behind higher education policies in many countries, with a growing number of HEIs emphasizing the importance of internationalization in their institutional policies and strategies (Ayoubi and Massoud 2007; Van Vught et al. 2002; Wende 2002).

Although there appears to be a general consensus about the importance of internationalization within HEIs (Sharma and Roy, 1996), a review of the literature does provides differences in its definition, as in depth, scope, and mode (Beamish and Calof, 1989; Dunning, 1989). These different views of internationalization can lead to uncertainty concerning the validity of the benefits it presents to the higher education domain (Absalom and Vadura, 2006).

(15)

(Elkin and Devjee, 2003). Because in a globalizing world, the students need an international perspective to be able to engage with it properly.

Huisman and van der Wende (2004) have a different view on the development of internationalization within higher education, by breaking it down in a more traditional and new form. Within the traditional form, internationalization is been seen as an add-on activity for smaller short-term projects, which can be compared with the historical definition of academic cross-border mobility. Herein, the internationalization of HEIs was rarely integrated within any form of regular strategy or regulation (Kalvermark and van der Wende, 1997; van der Wende, 2001; Virkus and Tammaro, 2005). In the new form of internationalization presented by Huisman and van der Wende (2004), two main drivers for the higher education can be determined. The first one focusses on the mission of HEIs to increase the overall quality and relevance of their contribution to society, through the integration of the international dimension discussed above. The second driver presents the new market opportunities for universities, supported by the growing demand for higher education worldwide, like exchange relationships and online teaching via internet (IAU, 2006).

The practical implementations following from the evolution of the internationalization definition into different more wide-ranging dimensions, remains unclear for HEIs. This presents varying rationales that motivate a move towards internationalization within different countries and universities (Abu Bakar and Abdu Talib, 2013). These distinctive perspectives of internationalization between HEIs, as mentioned by different papers, provide stakeholders with unique challenges. Also for these different stakeholder groups, there are several and diverse reasons for implementing this international dimension. Knight (1999) provided a framework to better understand these reasons for internationalization within higher education, by separating political, academic, economic and social-cultural rationales.

(16)

opportunity as; “operating beyond one’s own national boundaries opens up huge global markets for

both student numbers and for research funding” (p. 95).

This is a new shift in view, from seeing higher education as only a learning assistance activity or cultural program towards looking at it as an economic export commodity. Global demand for this international higher education will only increase, because of the growing international students from 1.8 million in 2000 to 7.2 million international students in 2025, forecasted by Bohm et al. (2002). Logically, a growing number of HEIs is moving toward such a market-oriented approach that highlights the economic aspect for the internationalization of higher education. Altbach and Knight (2007) found that, making money represents a significant internationalization motive for universities experiencing financial problems. Supporting multiple studies that view financial incentives as central stimulus for internationalization (Gornitzka and Maassen, 2000; Poole, 2001). Aside from making money, for HEIs international students and staff also represent cheap but highly qualified researchers and teachers. While international students and staff also significantly contribute to the host countries economy, for the state treasury in the Netherlands this amounts to around 1.57 billion euros each year (CBS, 2016). Therefore HEIs in developing countries are hosting significant numbers of international students and staff, all with as end goal to increase the overall quality, gain prestige, and earn income.

Abu Bakar and Abdu Talib (2013) indicate two sources of pressure on these universities to internationalize their programs. From the supply side, internationalization can be seen as an excellent strategy for increasing market share, international image, diversification, and opportunities for new in income. Therefore, HEIs need to make their curriculum more relevant to potential international customers, especially because some of the national markets have reached maturity (Mazzarol, 1998; Saffu and Mamman, 2000; Trim, 2001). On the demand side, developing economies feel the pressure to diversify their workforce’s educational background, to a more technical and modern generation.

Overall, internationalization seems to present all stakeholders involved in higher education with complex and challenging implications (Sirat, 2009). Although globalization is an unavoidable process that causes the need for internationalization, it does represents many diverse choices within that HEIs can make (Altbach and Knight, 2007). Knight (2005) described it as; “without a clear set of rationales,

followed by a set of objectives or policy statements, a plan or a set of strategies and a monitoring or an evaluation system, the process of internationalization is often an ad hoc, reactive and fragmented response of the overwhelming number of new internationalization opportunities available” (p. 15). Therefore, the development of an effective internationalization strategy within HEIs is likely to

have been hindered by the complexity and ambiguity of this internationalization topic (Nga, 2009).

3.2 Institutional pressure

(17)

view is proposed by the institutional theory, wherein the survival of organizations experiencing change is researched (Burns and Scapens, 2000). With as key message that an organizations primary goal is not substantive performance but increasing stability and legitimacy within the industry (DiMaggio, 1988; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975; Meyer and Rowan, 1983; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; Zucker, 1986). Therefore organizations cannot only focus on the rational constraints, but must also take into account the institutional environmental pressures and demands found in regulations, norms, laws, and social expectations (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Ashworth et al. (2007) explained it as; “organizational environments are characterized as the sources of these norms and

values that permeated organizations and influenced action, in particular by informing the ‘‘taken-for-granted’’ assumptions regarding the behaviours, organizational forms, and processes that are seen as legitimate” (p. 167). These taken-for-granted assumptions encompass from both formal and informal

institutions, that together increase the legitimacy of organizations, according to the institution-based view (Meyer et al., 2009; Peng, 2003; Peng et al., 2008; Peng et al., 2009; Scott, 2001). With informal pressures, that represent norms of behaviour, conventions, and codes of conduct, taking their effect relatively slow, while formal pressures, such as regulations and laws, having the ability to materialize almost immediately (Peng and Hao, 2011). Because these norms and rules, that organizations need to adhere to gain legitimacy, keep emerging from the institutional environment, they limit the number of accepted organizational forms (Deephouse, 1996; Roberts and Greenwood, 1997). Therefore, the organizations within the same institutional environment will become increasingly similar to each other, in order to be accepted and considered as legitimate within the organizational field (O’Brien and Slack, 2003, 2004; Skille, 2004; Bailey, 2013).

This process of organizations within the same environment gradually resembling each other is called ‘institutional isomorphism’ (Scott 2001). There are two forms through which this conformity can be done: compliance and convergence (Hawley, 1968). Firstly, compliance is the movement towards the direction following from the institutional pressures. Secondly, convergence refers to the increasing resembles of organizations within the same field, whereby convergence can occur with or without the aforementioned compliance. Although DiMaggio and Powell (1983) showed that, only when both compliance and convergence ensue together institutional theory will be supported strongly.

Thus the central point of institutional theory is that, an organization’s behaviours and decisions are influenced by the systems surrounding it (Scott, 2001). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) described three different mechanisms through which these systems can influence the organizations: ‘coercive isomorphism’, ‘normative isomorphism’ and ‘mimetic isomorphism’. Coercive isomorphism represents the formal and informal pressures arising from institutions upon which organizations dependent and by the cultural assumptions in their environment. Intervention of the government, through control and action, has generally been seen as the biggest influence on the structural revolution of organizations (Deng, 2009). Li and Ding (2013) confirm this; “the state’s regulatory regimes still exert considerable

(18)

as access to capital, land and human resources” (p. 509). In case of the internationalization at

universities, there are Dutch and European rules/regulations concerning the admission, financing, and treatment of all students enrolled. Therefore, the coercive pressure on the internationalization at universities seems present. However, not all the influence on organizations derives from coercive isomorphism. Organizational uncertainty, for example new technologies that are poorly understood (March and Olsen, 1976), is a powerful force that encourages imitation, also called mimetic isomorphism. Therefore when experiencing this uncertainty, organizations model themselves to other successful organizations in the same industry (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Burns and Wholey, 1993). As pointed out by Sahlin and Wedlin (2008), this is supported by the fact that organizational representatives compare their own organization with successful peers. Especially during times of uncertainty or low information, the easiest option for organizations is to try to copy the others in their field (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991). This imitation is not only done through the economic rationale of competitive necessity, but just as importantly for the legitimacy discussed above (Li and Ding, 2013). In case of the internationalization at universities, there are probably universities that imitate the practices of other (Dutch) universities due to uncertainty or ambiguity. Therefore, the mimetic pressure on the internationalization at universities seems present, to be more successful or more legitimate. The last mechanism through which institutional pressure influences organizations, normative isomorphism, can be seen as the norms and legitimate actions that result from professional relationships (Larson, 1991). This professionalization can be defined as, the attempt to determine the conditions and methods of a specific job by the employees, whereby a legitimacy base is established (Larson, 1977). Because of this, individual organizations change their practices to be able to conform to these shared norms (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Normative pressures are usually shared through inter-organizational channels within those professions. In case of the internationalization at universities, there are university network-partners and education accreditation organizations. Therefore, the normative pressure on the internationalization at universities seems present. Although their obvious difference, there is not one mechanism of institutional pressure that is superior in influencing organizations (Scott, 2003), whereby multiple different forms can cooperate and mutually reinforce with each other (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991; Meyer and Rowan, 1991).

(19)

3.3 Organizational strategy

Historically the term strategy has been defined in a variety of different ways, wherein the common theme of a deliberate set of guidelines that steer future decision-making reoccurs. Its simplest form derived from Game-theory, represents a set of rules that guide the actions of the players within the game. Chandler (1962) defines strategy as; "the determination of the basic long-term goals and

objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals" (p. 13). All the definitions concerning strategy within the

literature, agree on the fact that it can be seen as a clearly worked out, deliberately developed, and made in advance construct supporting a specific decision. Overall, Snow and Hambrick (1980) denominate strategy as the ‘plan’ of an organization.

The strategic content model of Boyne and Walker (2004) conceptualizes two levels of strategy within the public sector. Firstly, the strategic stance level contains the overall goals of the organization, which are unlikely to change significantly in short terms due to their great involvement throughout the whole organization (Zajac and Shortell, 1989). Specific actions to achieve those overall goals are worked out in the second level of strategy, which are more likely to change short term due to new opportunities and threats (Fox-Wolfgramm et al., 1998). Both the stance and actions together form the overall strategic content, that provides a more concrete picture than abstract strategies.

Research represents various different typologies concerning organizational behaviour, and more specifically organizational strategy. Alford (2001) pointed out that the focus between strategic content or process is one of the important dimensions for organizations. Whereby firstly the content role contains the procedure of deciding what to do, through analytical tools and organizational techniques (Andrews et al., 2006), resulting in long-term goals.

Concerning strategic content, Miles and Snow’s (1978) typology of strategic orientation is the only one that looks at the organization’s complete system. Dividing the organizational responses to new environmental circumstances into four groups: innovate (prospector), consolidate (defender), hybrid (analyser),or hold (reactor). Prospectors mainly display the attributes of innovative organizations, they can be seen as pioneers and leaders in the field. As Miles and Snow (1978) stated, “they are

organizations that almost continually search for market opportunities, and they regularly experiment with potential responses to emerging environmental trends” (p. 551). Within the public-sector, for

(20)

change and uncertainty without acting on it (Miles and Snow, 1978). Therefore, a strategic reactor stance can be seen as an organization without a specific strategy (Inkpen and Chaudhury 1995). These types of organizations only change their strategy when external agencies, such as regulators, impose it on them, and then it is still possible that they are unsuccessful due to lacking organizational culture and knowledge. Miles and Snow (1978) compared their strategic content typologies mentioned above with Chandler’s (1962) organizational types. Whereby Chandler's (1962) type 1 organization, which is characterized by functional structures, centralized planning and control, and a single product or small production line, corresponds with a defender typology. This functional type 1 organization developed in the 1800s, was the first organizational form available to large-scale enterprise. Similarly, the prospector typology of Miles and Snow (1978) corresponds in many ways with Chandler's (1962) type 2 organization, a decentralized and diversified organization. The analyser typology of Miles and Snow (1978) cannot be compared to an organizational type from Chandler (1962), but generally implements a matrix organization structure. Davis and Lawrence (1977) discuss how this matrix structure has only been present since the 1960s and characterizes itself as cross functional. According to the literature, both prospectors and defenders can be financially successful, even though of their differences. On the other hand, reactor organizations can only survive if the environment is highly protected by regulation, due to their overall lack of approach (Snow and Hrebiniak, 1980).

Returning to Alford’s (2001) strategic content and process dimensions, this process role focusses on the creation of the decisions made and not on the specific content they contain. “It is less

to find substantive solutions as such, but more to engage relevant actors to identify and deliberate about solutions and implementation opportunities” (p. 2), as Alford and Greve (2017) describe it. Whereby

the constraints that result from changing markets, services, and revenues play an important role in the strategic development process, that can be divided into two primary foci. Firstly, there are those who focused on major periods of strategic change (Mintzberg, 1978; Mintzberg and Waters, 1982; Miller and Friesen, 1984; Tushman and Romanelli, 1985), wherein an organizational strategy is developed through a conscious process of radical stages. Secondly, others have described the ongoing process of strategy making in organizations (Quinn, 1982), wherein strategic development may naturally happen as decisions are made one by one (Mintzberg, 1978).

Because the public value framework recognizes both public and business aspects concerning organizations, it is substantively better adjusted to deal with diverse situations than any other model of strategic management, especially in terms of the strategic content discussed above. Moore’s (1995) conception describes public managers as explorers who are focused on finding different new ways to create value. Moore (1995) explained the framework like; “a strategic triangle, consisting of the value

to be produced, the authorizing environment and the productive capabilities” (p. 2). Firstly, it is

(21)

to provide the permission, resources, and capabilities needed to operate (Salamon, 2002). Lastly, the organizations are depended on external providers and suppliers of the resources needed to be able to create value (Alford and O’Flynn, 2012). One of the key actions for public managers, should be the alignment of all the different elements from Moore’s (1995) public value framework, with as end goal to get all relevant stakeholders to come to terms with addressing the important issues. Organizations cannot optimize strategic intent without taking into account their environment, they must increasingly work together with stakeholders and citizens in wider democratic processes to achieve progression.

3.4 Institutional pressure and internationalization

The mechanisms behind the processes of change have increasingly become more popular, in the field of organizational studies (Hardy and Maguire, 2008; Sahlin and Wedlin, 2008). With a lot of the papers discussed earlier about institutional pressure, actually also being about organizational change. Skille (2011) explained association by comparing change and isomorphism to two sides of the same coin, whereby some things are becoming more alike while others are becoming more distinct.

If a new element is imported by an organization, due to institutional pressures, it has to be actively managed to make sure that it aligns with the receiving organization (Campbell, 2004). Jepperson (1991) further explained it as; “through this import and translation, institutional ideas flow

and dominant logics are reproduced and changed by the focal organization and its representatives, both of which can be considered a carrier of values, norms and practices within a field” (p. 143).

Therefore, through this import and translation of components from other organizations, these receiving organizations actually experience change (Sahlin and Wedlin, 2008). Whereby the employees of the focal organization, represent the key actors who are responsible for this process of implementing institutional elements within their organizations. “Ideas become legitimate, popular and even taken for

granted as being effective and indispensable as a result of having been adopted by certain actors in the field” (p. 218), as explained by Sahlin and Wedlin (2008). Like mentioned before, it is important to

remember that although these organizational actors perceive these institutional elements are relevant for their organization, they still require editing or translation to the receiving context to be useful (Skille, 2011).

Looking at the internationalization within higher education, research has shown that economic efficiency considerations are not the only driver behind this organizational change. With institutional pressures, in the form of social norms and values, motivating HEIs to pursue these internationalization strategies (Kostova and Zaheer, 1999; Kostova and Roth, 2002). Corresponding with Li and Ding’s (2013) findings, indicating that internationalization, as a key organizational practice for universities in an era of globalization, is not only driven by increasing profit margins, but also by institutional pressures derived from the HEIs environment.

(22)

in the growth of internationalization within higher education. These global relations between HEIs, give their international students the opportunity to increase their professional knowledge and experience other cultures and educational systems worldwide (Horie, 2002; and Poole, 2004). This international development means that universities now not only have to be aware of institutional pressures coming from their domestic environment, but also from their foreign. Because in order to survive, HEIs need legitimacy from both countries within their international partner relation (Xu and Shenkar, 2002; Peng and Hao, 2011). With institutional expectations from foreign stakeholders, such as international partner universities or European higher education regulation, being just as important as the domestic institutional pressure, such as the ministry OCW’s higher education regulation. To sum up, even if domestic institutions remain geographically located in their home country, they can be influenced by foreign institutions with who they interact (Peng and Hao, 2011).

Besides the fact that both domestic and foreign institutions are important, also the relationship between those two pressures needs to be taken into account. Consequently, only if HEIs are aware of and able to react to both of these institutional pressures, they can survive (Sherer and Lee, 2002; Tolbert and Zucker, 1983). Firstly, a university that has direct or indirect relationships with other HEIs that have implemented a specific practice, is more likely to be influenced to behave in a similar way (Burt, 1982). Therefore if the internationalization of the higher education is commonly seen as a valuable development within the field, then implementing this international dimension in your HEI will increase the legitimacy (Yamakawa et al., 2008). More specifically, the global higher education market presents opportunities and threats to the way universities change their structures, governance, and programs, because HEIs are constantly pushed by new institutional pressures (Marginson, 2000; Marginson and Considine, 2000; Porter and Vidovich, 2000; Rizvi and Walsh, 1998; Welch and Denman, 1997).

Li and Ding (2013) summarized the relationship between institutional pressures and internationalization as; “institutional isomorphic pressure positively affects the intensity of a firm’s

internationalization, so in addition to pursuing economic benefits, firms also seek internationalization with the purpose of gaining legitimacy via conforming to the requirements of institutional environment” (p. 519). Therefore it seems clear that Dutch universities will experience institutional pressures, through

coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism, that will influence their internationalization process.

3.5 Organizational strategy and internationalization

(23)

(Miller et al., 1980; Pettigrew, 1985). Andrews et al. (2017) difine strategic implementation as; “putting

strategies in practice, which entails the introduction of new service delivery models, monitoring the effectiveness of operational changes and redesigning the organizational structure, evaluation system, and culture required to fit the new strategy” (p. 3).

Multiple frameworks have been developed classifying the different strategy implementation approaches (Bourgeois and Brodwin, 1984; Hart, 1992; Hickson et al., 2003). With different implementation styles influencing an organizations performance, consequently defining its success (Andrews et al., 2017). The two major strategic implementation styles, within the strategic decision-making theory are: a rational or planned style of implementation and an incremental or ad-hoc style of implementation (Cespedes and Piercy, 1996; Thompson, 2000). Firstly, the rationale implementation style can be described as a pre-planned and precise process of introducing organizational change (Parsa, 1999; Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984; Chustz and Larson, 2006; Pinto and Prescott, 1990). Secondly, following a more fluid nature, incremental strategic implementation can be described as a supportive and decentralized process of introducing organizational change (Quinn, 1990). The rationale implementation style provides management with great control over the implementation process through its systematized nature (Bryson and Bromiley, 1993), which research has associated with better organizational performance in the private and public sector (Parsa, 1999; Thorpe and Morgan, 2007; Boyne, 2010; Bryson, 2011). While an incremental implementation style is argued to deliver greater responsiveness to the organizational and political uncertainties, because it takes into account the importance of learning and the possibilities to make changes (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1984). Andrews et al. (2017) described incrementalism as; “the deliberate improvement of strategy by

experimenting and learning from partial commitments” (p. 4). Although both of these diverse strategic

implementation styles present great opportunities for organizations, strategic decision-making research has discovered that their dual application can be even more beneficial (Hickson et al., 2003). According to Quinn (1987), this represents a more complete strategic implementation style also called ‘logical incrementalism’. Prior research on logical incrementalism has indicated a better organizational performance, compared with either a rational or an incremental style of strategic implementation. On the other hand, Inkpen and Choudhury’s (1995) research indicates that organizations can be without a particular strategic implementation style, although this absence is related to worse organizational performance. Presumably, due to the few processes and procedures that those organizations can exploit and their limited support for decision-making on the ground.

(24)

Dutch universities, it seems that both the specific type of strategy as the way of implementation do affect the organizational change.

3.6 Organizational strategy and institutional pressure

Historically, a lot of research has been done investigating different institutional processes (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1977, 1988), their influence on organization characteristics (Meyer et al., 1983; Meyer et al., 1987; Scott, 1987; Scott and Meyer, 1987; Smgh et al., 1986), and their effect on organizational change (Hinings and Greenwood, 1988; Tolberi and Zucker, 1983). Peng et al. (2008) mention that, although organizational strategy generally has been determined by economic rationales, also the institutional pressures originating from their environment play a significant role. Whereby, the former mostly focused on the implementation of efficiency, while the latter tries to gain legitimacy by conforming to widely accepted norms and values (Bresser and Millonig, 2003). When organizations detect these opportunities and threats presented by the institutional environment, they need to strategically conform by changing their organizational strategy (Peng, 2003; Peng and Khoury, 2008; Peng et al., 2008). Because institutional pressure can be sensed throughout all the organizational characteristics, legitimacy by their institutional environment should play an important factor when making strategic organizational choices (Flier et al., 2003). Within an industry, the strategies that are perceived as legitimate can be found throughout (Greenwood and Hinings, 1996; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Therefore, early adopters in an industry often choose a specific strategy due to technical-competitive reasons, while late adopters conform to the strategies that are seen as legitimate by the early adopters (Sherer and Lee, 2002; Tolbert and Zucker, 1983).

Due to the diverse levels of support for institutional pressures throughout organizational characteristics, it only seems logical that the degree to which these pressures influence specific organizational characteristics may differ. Miles and Snow’s (1978) paper indicated that organizational strategy probably would be less likely to change due to its unity with organizational identity. However, these results were contradicted by Ashworth et al. (2007), wherein they described that organization strategy was more susceptible to institutional pressures. These results suggest that there clearly is a relationship between institutional pressure and organizational strategy, although the strength and direction of these relationships still is ambiguity.

(25)

conforming to both domestic and foreign institutional pressures. Thus, governmental support can be a great source of help for these organizations to adopt a proactive strategy. Organizations that value both domestic and foreign institutional pressures are most likely to adopt a proactive strategy, whereby increasing their chance of retaining legitimacy under institutional pressures (Peng and Hao, 2011). Peng and Chen (2011) explained it as; “when firms need legitimacy in the environment to survive, they have

to accept their responsibility of conforming to both formal and informal institutions” (p. 101).

Organizations that can anticipate the use of a proactive strategy and have the ability to support it, possess a better position to deal with institutional pressures from both at domestic and foreign institutions (Peng 2009).

The adoption of a strategy by different organizations within a similar environment, influences the attractiveness of that strategy for the focal organization (Fligstein, 1985; Rowan, 1982; Tolbert and Zucker, 1983), leading to mimetic isomorphism. Galaskiewicz (1991) emphasises the importance of organizational proximity to the process of the diffusion of institutional practices form one organization to the other. Besides the strength and proximity of institutional pressures, also the organization’s expectation about responding to the institutional pressures influences its conformity. Because, when organizational goals conflict with these institutional pressures the institutionalization will be incomplete, leading to a defiance strategy (Covaleski and Dirsmitb, 1988; Powell, 1991).

Over the years, public managers have performed different roles within the public deliberation process, that have possible consequences on strategy and the strategy-making process (Alford et al., 2016). As we have seen in this chapter, there are multiple strategies (Miles and Snow, 1978) and a substantial number of organizational designs (Oliver, 1988), that can facilitate the adaptation of institutional pressures. Forthwith, public organizations should try to move away from their current focus on strategic content, and as their new focal point should try to work together with all stakeholders and citizens to create public value (Alford and Greve, 2017). Therefore, public managers should view themselves more as equal partners in a public value creation process, whereby focussing on the great influence of all drivers in the environment.

(26)

3.7 Conceptual model

Figure 1 shows the conceptual model constructed based on the previous discussion of the literature. In the centre of the figure, the organizational change “internationalization” is shown, which is directly influenced by the factors “institutional pressure” and “organizational strategy”. From the left, the influence of the institutional pressures, coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism, that work on the internationalization of the universities are illustrated. From the right, the influence of the different organizational strategies on the internationalization of the university’s is show. Finally, the bilateral relationship between the institutional pressure and organizational strategy, in the Dutch HE environment is been researched.

(27)

4. Methodology

This paper seeks to uncover how institutional pressures and organizational strategy influence the internationalization at the Dutch universities, while looking at the relationship between both factors. To this end, an in-depth understanding of the phenomena is required, making a qualitative research desirable (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Namely, a qualitative study provides rich data, which helps the researcher get a more profound understanding of a phenomenon (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Furthermore, in contrast to quantitative methods, which mainly rely on ‘hard’ data such as facts and numbers, qualitative methods deal with ‘softer’ data and are therefore more subjective and interpretative in nature (Barnham, 2015). This suits the nature and the area of the research. Since the relations between institutional pressures and organizational strategy in situations of organizational change are not quite clear, and the aim of the study is to gain more insights into this, a qualitative research is desirable.

4.1 Interview method

The qualitative research takes place in the form of interviews. Interviews are able to provide detailed information regarding the viewpoints and experiences of the interviewee on a specific topic (Turner, 2010), which suits the in-depth understanding required in this research. The data for this study was collected through semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews have the advantage that they ensure some predefined topics and questions will be covered, but also allow the interviewer to go deeper into interesting things being mentioned (Miles & Gilbert, 2006). In addition, due to time constraints each interviewee was interviewed only once, making a semi-structured interview the best suited option (Bernard, 1988).

4.2 Selecting interviewees

(28)

Because of the limited timeframe of the study, an interview was held at three universities of each of these two categories, giving a total of six interviewed universities. In search for the specific universities to be contacted, the focus was placed on universities located all throughout the Netherlands but staying away from the Dutch border as much as possible to reduce the influence of proximity. The intent was to take all the interviews with the head policymaker internationalization of the universities. As they are responsible for formulating and implementing the strategy, policy and mission, and most likely hold the best knowledge about the internationalisation at the university. In addition, these head policymakers carry the final responsibility for the universities internationalization and are therefore the most appropriate persons to interview. For these reasons, contact was sought with the head policymaker of the universities. Of each of the two categories, high and low internationalization, four universities were approached for potential interviews. Calls were made with the universities, sometimes taking multiple phone calls, before getting the contact information of the head internationalization policymakers. Then, the purpose of the study was explained and permission for an interview was asked, mostly through emails. From both of the categories containing four possible universities, three agreed to cooperate.

Besides the six universities, it was also important to look at other relevant organization in the university’s environment, thereby adding different perspectives. This inclusion of an additional perspectives ensures a more complete view, which increases the reliability of the research (Van Aken et al., 2012). After examining the university’s environment, four additional organization were selected to create this diverse picture, the ministry (OCW), the national association of Dutch universities (VSNU), the Dutch organisation for internationalisation in education (Nuffic), and the Dutch student union (LSVb). After receiving the contact information of the head policymakers regarding internationalization, through email the purpose of the study was explained and permission for an interview was asked. All four organizations agreed to cooperate with the research.

4.3 Interview questions

(29)

the questions focused on the degree to which the interviewee was aware of and influenced by the organizational strategies of other universities in their environment. Questions about the roles of legislation and policy of relevant organizations in the university’s environment and the roles of students and employees within the universities, were used to identify the third section institutional pressure. These questions also covered the link between these institutional pressures and the internationalization at the universities. Within section two, about organizational strategy, and section three, about institutional pressure, there were also questions trying to research the relationship between these two constructs.

The semi-structured interview, of the four relevant organizations in the university’s environment, is structured slightly different. After the same first main topic, the internationalization of the higher education, the interview focuses on the relationship between the organization and the Dutch universities. Questions in this section serve to get insights into what kind of role the organizations play in the internationalization of the higher education, how they influence this process, and how they see the internationalization of the higher education further developing in the next years.

The interviews conclude with two questions, inviting the interviewee to add anything relevant that had not yet been discussed and asking them if they would like to be kept up to date with the future developments of this paper. The interviews are enclosed in appendix A.

4.4 Data analysis

The interviews were spread across a three-week period, on all the days of a working week, and held at different times of the day. This reduced the situation bias, increasing the assumption that research results are attributable to the questions being asked instead of the specific moment of the interview (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012). Furthermore, since the interview research relies on only one method, multiple questions were asked regarding the same construct, because this increases the reliability of the research (Swanborn, 1996). Next, the semi-structured nature of the interviews helped ensure that the predefined topics were being covered and that these were the same for all interviewees. This reduces the possibility that research results are influenced by the researcher, thereby limiting the researcher bias (Van Aken et al., 2012).

(30)

(31)

5. Results

Using the theory from chapter three, the results of the interviews will be discussed in detail this chapter. In the first paragraph the internationalization results of the low and high internationalization universities will be shown and compared. The second section will contain the results of the organizational strategies implemented by the low and high internationalization universities and their influence on internationalization and institutional pressure. The third and last paragraph of this chapter will discuss the institutional pressures on the low and high internationalization universities and their influence on internationalization and organization strategy. In addition to a description and comparison, these results will also be linked to the literature discussed in chapter three.

5.1 Internationalization

In the overview below (table 4), all the important elements with regard to the internationalization of the six Dutch universities that have been interviewed have been mapped out. The characteristics are substantiated with quotes from the conducted interviews. In section 5.1.3 the differences and similarities between the low and high internationalization universities are described.

5.1.1 Internationalization at the low internationalization universities

The low internationalization universities all agreed on the important aspects defining internationalization of the higher education. While especially emphasizing the fact that internationalization within the higher education being a continuous process. One of them described it as: “Internationalization of the higher education is the intended process of integrating an international

and intercultural global dimension in the education, research, and service elements of the organization, to increase the quality of education and research for all students and staff, to make a valuable contribution to society” (University A). With this university A being the only university who

emphatically added that internationalization eventually creates a valuable societal contribution. This process of internationalization within the higher education has been experienced within all of the interviewed low internationalization universities. With the key factor being the increasing numbers of international student applications and international staff willing to work at the university. While these universities all fall into the low internationalization group within the Netherlands, they have noticed significant growth over the last couple of years. One university says about this: “This has

been a gradual process of years of growth in international student numbers, that has grown so naturally” (University B). While for university B this growth of international student numbers has

(32)

Question – Sub question Low internationalization universities High internationalization universities 1 How would you define “internationalization

of the higher education”?

Connecting global academic communities (3/3)

Creating global relevance within education and research (3/3) Providing dynamic experiences through different perspectives and cultural backgrounds (3/3)

All to improve the quality of education and research (3/3) It is a continuous process (3/3)

To make a valuable contribution to society (1/3)

Connecting global academic communities (3/3)

Creating global relevance within education and research (3/3) Providing dynamic experiences through different perspectives and cultural backgrounds (3/3)

All to improve the quality of education and research (3/3)

2a

2b

Does your university experience this internationalization of the higher education? If so, how do you notice this?

Yes (3/3)

Growing number of international students and staff (3/3) Also Dutch students more interested in English educations (1/3)

Yes (3/3)

Growing number of international students and staff (3/3) Also Dutch students more interested in English educations (1/3)

3a

3b

Can you tell me how the internationalization practices at your university look like?

What ‘internationalization at home’ practices?

What ‘cross-border education’ practices?

More English bachelors and masters (2/3) More English masters but Dutch bachelors (1/3) International classroom (2/3)

Everything communicated in English (1/3)

Support for all staff regarding internationalization (3/3) International mobility between partners (3/3)

More English bachelors and masters (2/3) International classroom (3/3)

Everything communicated in English and Dutch (2/3) Virtual online experiences (2/3)

Support for all staff regarding internationalization (3/3) International mobility between partners (3/3)

Pre-departure and post return stuff (1/3) Prove that exchange is a good thing (1/3) 4 Would you describe the internationalization

practices at your university as add-on activities or as an integrated dimension?

It needs to integrated (3/3) We are not there yet (3/3)

It needs to integrated (3/3) It is fully integrated (2/3) We are not there yet (1/3) 5 What is / are the underlining reason (s) for

your university to engage in internationalization practices? (Philosophical / Economical)

Internationalization not target on its own (3/3) Increasing quality is key (3/3)

We don’t need to grow (1/3) We want to grow (2/3)

Similar funding NL/EU/non-EU students (3/3)

Internationalization not target on its own (3/3) Increasing quality is key (3/3)

X number of students needed to sustain (2/3) We don’t need to grow (2/3)

We want to grow (1/3)

Similar funding NL/EU/non-EU students (3/3) 6 How do you see the internationalization at

your university further developing in the next years?

Inclusiveness internationalization (3/3) Looking for strong partners (1/3)

Converting educations to English or not (1/3)

Inclusiveness internationalization (1/3) Looking for strong partners (1/3) Increase non-EU diversity (2/3)

(33)

Of course all universities have implemented internationalization practices to support this growth in international student and staff numbers. Just like discussed in chapter 3, these can be divided in ‘internationalization at home’ practices and ‘cross-border education’ practices.

‘internationalization at home’ practices all universities firstly provide their master’s degree programs mostly in English due to their research nature. One university described it as logic: “Within

the master’s degree programs the starting point is English unless it is not useful, with most international students in these master programs, which is also logical because the research is always very international” (University C). With the majority of the bachelor’s degree programs being Dutch and

also staying Dutch according to all universities. Secondly, all universities are focussing their attention on the diversity within the international classrooms, which provides added experiences and perspectives. One university says: “This international classroom is really important for those students

who stay at home and do not choose for a period abroad, that those students still gain some international experience, with as end goal that every student has such an international learning experience, by sitting in class with multiple nationalities” (University A). Thirdly, to provide such an

international learning experience to all the students, the universities unanimously agree on the fact that their staff will need additional support to deal with this new diverse classroom. One university described it as: “We offer courses to our staff to deal with this internationalization better, because this does not

happen automatically, in addition to the in incorporation of international competencies in all programs” (University C). Although the increasing internationalization of the higher education, the

majority of these universities still preserve Dutch as their main communication language, with only one university switching to English. They explain this as: “That has to do with our technical studies and

their technical perspective, we are here in the brainport region with international companies where English is spoken, that is a natural process what reflects in our staff” (University B).

As ‘cross-border education’ practice all universities agree that finding the right international partner universities is of great importance. With these partners exchange programs can be formulated to provide all students with an international learning experience abroad. One university says: “We have

been proactively engaged in joint programs, with which the added value of such a program and the quality of the partner is paramount. Furthermore, we encourage students to get as much mobility as possible in their curriculum, sometimes this even is mandatory” (University A).

All the universities discussed that the internationalization dimension should be integrated throughout the whole university, but that this was not yet the case. With one university describing it as:

“Organizationally this is still a separate part, it would be very nice when internationalization is interwoven with all the departments, it is still separate at this time, we try to work to an increasingly integrated situation, but that is not yet the case everywhere” (University A).

Internationalization at Dutch Universities: Institutional pressure and Organizational strategy