New study questions whether business management practices belong in academic institutions

Education Policy | 15 January 2026

British universities have spent the past two decades transforming themselves into business-like organisations. Performance targets, competency frameworks, and sophisticated HR systems now dominate academic life. But a provocative new study asks whether this corporate makeover has actually made universities better, or simply made them more bureaucratic.

The research, published in The Pinnacle Research Journal of Scientific and Management, examines what researchers call “high-performance work practices” and their application in higher education. The findings suggest that importing management techniques from business may be fundamentally at odds with how academic work actually happens.

From Collegiality to Corporate Culture

Universities once operated as collegial communities where academics largely governed themselves. Departments made hiring decisions collectively, research directions emerged from scholarly interest rather than strategic plans, and teaching methods remained the preserve of individual professional judgement.

That world has largely disappeared. Contemporary universities resemble corporations, complete with executive leadership teams, strategic objectives, key performance indicators, and annual appraisals.

The shift accelerated following funding reforms in the 1990s and intensified with each subsequent policy change. Research assessment exercises, teaching quality frameworks, and student satisfaction surveys created pressure for universities to demonstrate measurable performance.

Management consultants arrived, bringing practices proven in manufacturing, retail, and professional services. University leaders, many recruited from outside academia, implemented corporate HR systems designed to drive performance improvement.

The assumption seemed straightforward. If systematic recruitment, structured training, regular appraisals, and performance-linked rewards improved outcomes in business, surely they would work in universities too.

Questioning the Assumption

The research team, led by Madiha Hassan (SFHEA) from Scholars School System (Leeds Trinity University Partnership), challenges this logic. Using the Ability, Motivation and Opportunity framework, they examined how academic staff actually experience these corporate practices.

The AMO model proposes that performance depends on three factors. Employees need ability (skills and knowledge), motivation (incentives and engagement), and opportunity (the organisational conditions that allow them to use their abilities effectively).

In corporate settings, high-performance work practices address all three dimensions. Selective recruitment ensures ability, performance management systems create motivation, and job design provides opportunity.

However, the researchers argue that this model rests on assumptions that don’t hold in universities.

The Ability Question

Consider recruitment. Corporate HR theory emphasises selecting the best candidates as foundational to performance. Get hiring right, and everything else follows.

Universities certainly want quality staff. Yet academic recruitment operates differently than in most sectors. Candidates typically hold doctorates, have published research, and possess teaching experience before their first permanent post. They arrive as trained professionals, not as employees requiring development.

“The variation in university performance isn’t primarily about who gets hired,” explains Dr Kennedy Oberhiri Obohwemu from PENKUP Research Institute, a co-author. “It’s about what happens after hiring. Do academics get research time? Can they access development opportunities? Are they supported in building their careers?”

Many universities have invested heavily in elaborate recruitment processes whilst cutting professional development budgets. The research suggests this gets priorities backwards. In knowledge-intensive work performed by highly qualified professionals, retention and ongoing development matter more than initial selection.

The Motivation Puzzle

Performance appraisal systems represent another corporate import that may not translate well. In business, regular appraisals align individual objectives with organisational goals, provide feedback, and link performance to rewards.

Universities have embraced annual appraisals enthusiastically. Academic staff now spend considerable time documenting activities, setting objectives, and meeting with line managers to discuss performance.

Yet the research reveals widespread dissatisfaction with these systems. Academics question their value when they already receive extensive performance feedback through mechanisms that matter more to them: peer review of publications, student evaluations, citation counts, grant success rates, and recognition within their disciplines.

“The problem isn’t that academics oppose accountability,” notes Dr Fidelis Evwiekpamare Olori from Global Banking School (Oxford Brookes University Partnership). “They’re evaluated constantly through processes that connect directly to their professional identity. Adding another layer of appraisal that uses generic criteria feels disconnected from what actually drives academic quality.”

Moreover, academic motivation operates differently than in many corporate settings. Salary matters, but academics are often drawn by intellectual challenge, contribution to knowledge, and disciplinary recognition. Performance systems focused on targets and metrics may miss what actually motivates scholarly work.

The Opportunity Gap

The most significant findings concern what the researchers call “opportunity-enhancing practices,” the organisational conditions that enable people to use their skills effectively.

In corporate HPWP models, opportunity practices include employee involvement in decisions, communication systems, and team structures. These matter but often take secondary importance to ability and motivation factors.

The research suggests this hierarchy is inverted in universities. Opportunity practices emerged as paramount. Autonomy over research direction and teaching methods, genuine involvement in governance, transparent communication from leadership, and collegial working relationships appeared far more important than recruitment selectivity or performance appraisal.

This makes sense given the nature of academic work. Universities employ doctoral-level professionals with strong intrinsic motivation. The constraint on performance isn’t lack of ability or motivation but organisational conditions that prevent academics from doing what they’re trained and motivated to do.

Excessive administrative burden, unclear institutional priorities, inadequate research time, poor communication, and exclusion from decisions affecting their work, these factors undermine performance more than any recruitment or appraisal system can overcome.

The Wellbeing Cost

An undercurrent throughout the research concerns academic wellbeing. Multiple studies document rising stress, burnout, and job dissatisfaction in UK higher education.

Universities typically frame this as a workload issue requiring better time management or resilience training. The research points to a deeper problem.

Corporate management practices emphasise monitoring, standardisation, and external motivation. When applied to professionals who expect autonomy, professional judgement, and intrinsic engagement, these practices generate frustration regardless of workload levels.

Academics report particular stress when they lose control over core aspects of their work, when administrative requirements consume time for scholarship, and when institutional priorities feel disconnected from academic values.

Improving wellbeing may require reconsidering management approaches rather than simply offering support services.

International Parallels

The UK isn’t alone. Australian, New Zealand, and some European universities have followed similar trajectories with comparable results. Academic staff worldwide report similar frustrations with corporate management practices.

However, some systems have resisted this trend. German universities maintain stronger academic self-governance traditions. Scandinavian institutions balance managerial efficiency differently, preserving more professional autonomy.

These variations raise important questions. Do different management approaches produce different outcomes in research quality, teaching effectiveness, and staff wellbeing? Comparative research could illuminate which models work best under which conditions.

A Different Path?

The research team offers several recommendations for university leaders willing to reconsider current approaches.

First, recognise that academics aren’t typical employees. They possess deep expertise, identify primarily with disciplines rather than institutions, and derive motivation from intellectual challenge. Management systems should build on these characteristics rather than ignore them.

Second, shift from monitoring to enabling. Ask what prevents capable, motivated professionals from excelling rather than how to make them perform better. The answer often involves removing barriers: inadequate resources, unclear priorities, excessive administration, insufficient time.

Third, strengthen rather than weaken participation in governance. Academic staff should have genuine influence over decisions affecting their work. This produces better decisions, not just happier staff.

Fourth, treat professional development as continuous investment throughout academic careers, not just initial training for early-career staff.

Fifth, redesign performance systems around support rather than audit. Help academics succeed rather than catch them failing.

The Broader Question

The research raises fundamental questions about university governance and purpose.

Higher education faces genuine pressures. Funding constraints, demographic changes, technological disruption, and evolving student expectations require institutional adaptation. Nobody argues for complacency or resistance to change.

The question is what kind of change. Does effective adaptation mean importing corporate practices, or does it require developing management approaches suited to universities’ distinctive characteristics and social purposes?

“Universities produce knowledge crucial for society,” argues Dr Bumi Jang from University of Wolverhampton. “If academic productivity depends on conditions that corporate management undermines, we have a public interest problem, not just an internal institutional issue.”

The research calls for empirical investigation of how different HR practices actually affect research quality, teaching effectiveness, and academic wellbeing. Most evidence comes from business contexts. Higher education needs its own knowledge base.

It also calls for honest dialogue between university leaders and academic staff about performance expectations, accountability mechanisms, and what enables quality work.

Will Anything Change?

Whether UK universities will reconsider their corporate turn remains uncertain.

The incentives encouraging current approaches remain powerful. Government funding models, regulatory frameworks, and league tables all push towards measurable performance, standardised processes, and corporate governance structures.

Moreover, many university leaders are invested, literally and psychologically, in current management approaches. Admitting that imported corporate practices may not work as intended requires uncomfortable reassessment.

Yet the evidence suggests something isn’t working. Staff dissatisfaction, wellbeing concerns, and questions about whether managerial reforms have actually improved academic quality all point towards the need for rethinking.

The research offers a starting point: recognising that universities are distinctive organisations requiring management approaches suited to their particular character rather than practices borrowed from fundamentally different contexts.

Whether that message will be heard remains to be seen.

About the Study

The research, “Revisiting the Ability, Motivation and Opportunity (AMO) Model in UK Higher Education: A Conceptual Expansion of High-Performance Work Practices,” appears in The Pinnacle Research Journal of Scientific and Management, Volume 3, Issue 1. The study was conducted by researchers from Leeds Trinity University, Oxford Brookes University, University of Wolverhampton, and other UK institutions, with support from PENKUP Research Institute in Birmingham.