Global university rankings: The macro-micro contradiction in public university management

Abstract

Performance measurement and management has become a passion, even approach-ing a mania, of Australian public universities. In a world of multiple, competing global rankings of universities, known as global university rankings (GURs), our public universities pit themselves against each other competitively in seeking to ascend selected ranking regimes that best suit and reflect their institutions. This Australian study delves into this New Public Management (NPM) driven mantra, by examining the explicit mission or purpose statements (hereafter “missions”) and the vision or ambition statements (hereafter “visions”) of the 37 public universities in Australia in late 2021/early 2022, based on their public disclosures. This study provides widespread evidence of the formal aspirations of these institutions to act in the public interest and to serve and advance society, communities and people. At the same time, however, the main operational game, or rather the passion being played out by these institutions, is facilitated by means of the transformative (or potentially corrupting) power of GURs in moving Australia’s public universities progressively towards a self-interested corporate culture and associated dysfunctional behaviours in creating competition within and across public universities. This dichotomy is identified as the “macro-contributions” approach to university management as opposed to the “micro-measurement”, metrics-driven approach to university management, described herein as “the macro-micro contradiction” in public university management. Accounting as performance measurement is portrayed as transformative, influencing human behaviour, shaping organisational culture, and impacting the organisational and social functioning and development of these institutions. Moreover, public universities, in substance, become what they are not.