Steering-at-a-distance or close micro-management in higher education: Does performance management and performance contracts support steering-at-a-distanc at Danish Universities?

Governance in higher education has undergone significant changes in the recent decades (Rizvi & Lingard 2010, King 2009, Bleiklie & Kogan 2007). Some countries have made a shift toward a greater decentralization with increased... [ view full abstract ]

Governance in higher education has undergone significant changes in the recent decades (Rizvi & Lingard 2010, King 2009, Bleiklie & Kogan 2007). Some countries have made a shift toward a greater decentralization with increased institutional autonomy while other countries have done the opposite (Capano 2011:1622). However broader public sector reforms in most western countries have increased focus on performance in the last three decades (Rainey 2010, Kettl 2005), and performance management (PM) has become a prominent management strategy within the public sector (Moynihan, 2008; Pollitt & Bouckaert 2011). This tendency is also reflected in higher education governance, and in many western countries higher education is governed through a steering-at-a-distance approach (Capano 2011:1627; Christensen & Lægreid 2007), which includes a focus on performance (results and outcomes) and increased autonomy at the local level – at least ideally (Degn & sørensen, 2015; Reale & Seeber 2012; Christensen, 2010; Bleiklie 1998). Danish universities are no exception to this. The recent reforms of Danish universities (especially the reform in 2007) were made with the policy intention to professionalize the university management but also to provide the universities with more autonomy (Degn & Sørensen 2012; 2015). The governance model consisted of a new managerial structure with professional boards (with a majority of external member) that holds the leadership of the universities accountable, combined with development contracts, that specifies performance goals for each university, between the Ministry of Higher Education and Science (henceforth abbreviated as “the Ministry”) and the board. This managerial model aligns with the steering-at-a-distance approach to university governance (Capano 2011) and should ensure autonomy at the universities.
However, public statements from different leaders at Danish universities and the evaluations of the University Act, on the contrary suggest that this managerial structure has resulted in decreased autonomy and closer micro-management (Ministry of Science 2009, Degn and Sørensen 2015). In this paper, we search for possible explanations of why this seems to be the case. Thus, our research question is:

What might explain that steering-at-a-distance at Danish universities results in less not more autonomy?


The paper is based on results from a research project of governance and performance of Danish universities. The data include a survey with all members of the Danish University Boards (response rate 80), qualitative interviews with chairmen of the board at Danish universities, and performance contracts between the ministry and each university from 2005-2015.