Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder pressure to obtain world-class status among Indonesian universities

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The growing influence of global rankings drives higher education institutions (HEIs) across the globe to conform to the indicators and implement changes to obtain world-class status. We examine why HEIs in similar institutional environments are structured and processed differently on the ranking issue with different outcomes. By employing a qualitative method, we engaged in a 44-month study period from September 2015 to April 2019. The main data sources were interviews with 75 informants from among the various stakeholders at the Indonesian Top 11 AHEIs (autonomous HEIs) and other available secondary data. The findings show that the factors driving the change initiatives in Indonesian universities can be categorised into institutional and market pressures, respectively. Our findings also indicate that changes to obtain world-class status are highly driven by external stakeholders for the Indonesian AHEIs outside the World University Ranking (WUR) Top 500, while the AHEIs which have entered the Top 500 highly are influenced by the internal stakeholders. We conclude that different stakeholders and pressures determine the differences of change process as well as the outcomes. Therefore, these findings suggest that pressures from external stakeholders are needed for the changes among AHEIs with low-level WUR, while pressures from internal stakeholders are needed to maintain and increase the ranking among high level WUR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alarcón-del-Amo, M.D.C., Casablancas-Segura, C., & Llonch, J. (2016). Responsive and proactive stakeholder orientation in public universities: antecedents and consequences. Higher Education, 72(2), 131–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bak, H.J., & Kim, D.H. (2015). Too much emphasis on research? An empirical examination of the relationship between research and teaching in multitasking environments. Research in Higher Education, 56(8), 843–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinded, L. (2017). RANKED: These will be the 32 most powerful economies in 2030. https://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-pwc-predicts-the-most-powerful-economies-in-2030-2017-2/?IR=T. Accessed March 14, 2019.

  • Burrows, J. (1999). Going beyond labels: a framework for profiling institutional stakeholders. Contemporary Education, 70(4), 5-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castro, R., Rosa, M.J., & Pinho, C. (2014). A model for stakeholders’ influence on internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(2), 160–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, P., Millar, C.C.J.M., & Ju Choi, C. (2006). Organizational change in stakeholder business systems: the role of institutions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(3), 383–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. (2011). University governance reforms: potential problems of more autonomy? Higher Education, 62(4), 503–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeCramer, A., Smolders, C., Vanderstraeten, A., & Christiaens, J. (2012). The impact of institutional pressures on employee performance management systems in higher education in the low countries. British Journal of Management, 23, S88–S103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobija, D., Górska, A.M., & Pikos, A. (2019). The impact of accreditation agencies and other powerful stakeholders on the performance measurement in Polish universities. Baltic Journal of Management, 14(1), 84–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, E., & Reuber, R. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unfamiliar: the challenges of reputation formation facing new firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 53–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. London: Pitman Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk, J. (2016). Using keyword search for media analysis. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., & Karnøe, P. (2010). Path dependence or path creation? Journal of Management Studies, 47(4), 760–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, B. (2011). The fall of the faculty: the rise of the all-administrative university and why it matters. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., & Hamilton, A.L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goglio, V. (2016). One size fits all? A different perspective on university rankings. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(2), 212–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, L., & Núñez, A.M. (2014). The ranking regime and the production of knowledge: implications for academia. Education Policy Analysis Archives.

  • Greve, H.R., & Teh, D. (2018). Goal selection internally and externally: a behavioral theory of institutionalization. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, S19–S38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubbs, J.W. (2001). A community of voices: using allegory as an interpretive device in action research on organizational change. Organizational Research Methods, 4(4), 376–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: the battle for world-class excellence. London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E., & Gibson, A. (2017). Global science, national research, and the question of university rankings. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, D., Lee, P.L., & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: a review. Journal of Management, 37(1), 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, F., & Ding, D.Z. (2013). The effect of institutional isomorphic pressure on the internationalization of firms in an emerging economy: evidence from China. Asia Pacific Business Review, 19(4), 506–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahon, J.F. (2002). Corporate reputation: a research agenda using strategy and stakeholder literature. Business & Society, 41(4), 415–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainardes, E.W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2012a). A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships. Management Decision, 50(10), 1861–1879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainardes, E.W., Raposo, M., & Alves, H. (2012b). Universities need a market orientation to attract non-traditional stakeholders as new financing sources. Public Organization Review, 14(2), 159–171.

  • Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2016). To rank or to be ranked: the impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 306–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marques, M., & Powell, J.J.W. (2020). Ratings, rankings, research evaluation: how do Schools of Education behave strategically within stratified UK higher education? Higher Education, 79(5), 829–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • März, V., Kelchtermans, G., & Vermeir, K. (2017). Artifacts as authoritative actors in educational reform. Journal of Educational Change, 18(4), 439–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay, R.B. (2001). Organizational responses to an environmental bill of rights. Organization Studies, 22(4), 625–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K. (1973). The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miotto, G., Del-Castillo-Feito, C., & Blanco-González, A. (2020). Reputation and legitimacy: key factors for Higher Education Institutions’ sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Business Research, 112, 342–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, H.T., Hamid, M.O., & Moni, K. (2016). English-medium instruction and self-governance in higher education: the journey of a Vietnamese university through the institutional autonomy regime. Higher Education, 72(5), 669–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oancea, A. (2008). Performative accountability and the uk research assessment exercise. ACCESS: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural and Policy Studies, 27(1/2), 153–173.

  • Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2003). Challenging ‘strategic HRM’ and the relevance of the institutional setting. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), 56–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paradeise, C., & Thoenig, J.C. (2013). Academic institutions in search of quality: local orders and global standards. Organization Studies, 34(2), 189–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmar, B.L., Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: the state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfarrer, M.D., Pollock, T.G., & Rindova, V.P. (2010). A tale of two assets: the effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors’ reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1131–1152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V.P., Williamson, I.O., Petkova, A.P., & Sever, J.M. (2005). Being good or being known: an empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1033–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ristekdikti (2017). Rencana Strategis Kementerian Riset, Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi Tahun 2015-2019. Jakarta; Kementerian Riset, Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi Republik Indonesia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rungfamai, K. (2016). Research-university governance in Thailand: the case of Chulalongkorn University. Higher Education, 74(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, J.S. (2020). Comprehensive internationalization in the pursuit of ‘World-Class’ status: a cross-case analysis of Singapore’s two flagship universities. Higher Education Policy, 33(4), 753-775.

  • Sauder, M., & Espeland, W.N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G.T., Nix, T.W., Whitehead, C.J., & Blair, J.D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Perspectives, 5(2), 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, J.C. (2009). Building world-class research university: the brain Korea 21 project. Higher Education, 58(5), 669–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonenshein, S. (2010). We’re changing-or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 477–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stensaker, B., Välimaa, J., & Sarrico, C. (Eds.). (2012). Managing reform in universities: the dynamics of culture. Identity and Organisational Change: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sydow, J., Schreyogg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sydow, J., Schreyogg, G., & Koch, J. (2020). On the theory of organizational path dependence: clarifications, replies to objections, and extensions. Academy of Management Review, 45(4), 717–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, Y.S., & Goh, S.K. (2014). International students, academic publications and world university rankings: the impact of globalisation and responses of a Malaysian public university. Higher Education, 68(4), 489–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trader-Leigh, K.E. (2002). Case study: identifying resistance in managing change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 138–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turan, F.K., Cetinkaya, S., & Ustun, C. (2016). A methodological framework to analyze stakeholder preferences and propose strategic pathways for a sustainable university. Higher Education, 72(6), 743–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vught, F. (2008). Mission diversity and reputation in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), 151–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (2011). Changing governance and authority relations in the public sciences. Minerva, 49(4), 359–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, R., & Welch, A. (2012). A world-class university in China? The case of Tsinghua Higher Education, 63(5), 645–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R.K. (2018). Case study research and applications design and methods (6ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Universitas Airlangga, Airlangga Rd. 4-6, Surabaya, 60286, Indonesia

    Badri Munir Sukoco, Mohammad Fakhruddin Mudzakkir, Abdillah Ubaidi & Dian Ekowati

  2. Department of Accounting, Universitas Airlangga, Airlangga Rd. 4-6, Surabaya, 60286, Indonesia

    Muhammad Nasih & Bambang Tjahjadi

  3. Faculty of Industrial Technology, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha No. 10, Bandung, Indonesia

    Hermawan Kresno Dipojono

Authors
  1. Badri Munir Sukoco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Fakhruddin Mudzakkir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abdillah Ubaidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Muhammad Nasih
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hermawan Kresno Dipojono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dian Ekowati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bambang Tjahjadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Badri Munir Sukoco.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sukoco, B.M., Mudzakkir, M.F., Ubaidi, A. et al. Stakeholder pressure to obtain world-class status among Indonesian universities. High Educ 82, 561–581 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00667-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00667-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation