As a result of socio-economic and political developments, such as budget constraints, accountability for quality, ‘massification’, and decentralisation of higher education (e.g., Bryson, 2004), universities all over Europe have adopted organizational strategies, structures, technologies, management instruments and values that are commonly found in the private business sector (Aucoin, 1990; Deem, 1998). This trend of copying techniques of the private sector by public organization is ‘one of the earliest features of New Public Management, and remains one of the most enduring’ (Boyne, 2002, p. 97) and may even go further back then the actual term NPM or ‘managerialism’ (Hood, 1991, 1995; Pollitt, 1993). Some researchers suggest that “‘some dose’ of ‘managerialism’ in the right proportion and in the right context” may be useful in universities and that it positively affects the quality of job performances (Chan, 2001, p. 109; see also RAE, 2001). This research is challenged by others who argue that managerialism works against its own intentions of efficient and effective quality improvement (see also Bryson, 2004; Davies and Thomas, 2002; Thornhill et al., 1996; Trow, 1994). In order to investigate the impact of managerialism at universities, a questionnaire has been conducted in 2005, in six European countries, in 18 universities, with 2325 respondents, academic as well as support staff. The findings of this survey were rather inconclusive. We found neither a direct positive nor a negative effect of managerialism on organizational commitment. For example, since social interactions have clear positive effects on university employees’ organizational commitment, it appears that collegiality and social contacts are core aspects of an academic institution, whatever the level of managerialism. A number of questions remained unanswered, particularly concerning the diversity between countries and universities.

We therefore decided to organize a second round of data collection, by carrying out interviews in three countries: the Netherlands, Sweden and the U.K, in similar universities as the previous phase. In the summer of 2007 in each country between 14 and 18 interviews have been carried out with employees (mainly academic staff, within three different universities. To ensure comparability, interviews were carried out by means of a topic list, were audio taped and transcribed fully.

It is very clear that there is a move towards more measurable standards of performance in the three countries, e.g. in terms of international publications or external grants and funding. We found evidence for this in all universities. However, in Sweden, there are few sanctions on not succeeding to achieve such standards, while in the Netherlands failure to publish international will lead to a career stagnation and loss of research time. In the U.K. sanctions may be directly related to the work conditions. Hierarchical control is increasing; the faculty dean often obtained extended power, which coincides with a ‘professionalisation of the managerial kind of positions’. Such positions are now increasingly filled externally hired staff. Respondents in the three countries showed a clear dislike of the growing administration, the increasing competition for research funding, the obligation to fill in time-consuming grant application, the heavier workload, etc.. Examples of frustration and stress are omnipresent. However, while this may have affected their commitment to the organization, their involvement with the content of their work is still present. Most academics work very long hours. Particular interesting was the way some respondents managed to cope with the obligations imposed upon them. They found ways to ‘work round’ these stressful obligations and survived by maintaining their autonomy and academic freedom. The paper will elaborate on that.