**1. Introduction**

The development of the knowledge-based economy is forcing a major shift in the organizational model of universities. As a unique, 'loosely coupled' organization, the interest that was directed towards the internal structure of the organization now shifts to a 'holistic model' as the relationship between universities and industry and the business community deepens [1]. In the state–university relationship, as well, the focus has been shifted from regulation of procedures to outcomes and results, a context of deregulation with an emphasis on the measurement of results. Underlying this change is the ideology of *managerialism*, which sees the public sector as something to be 'managed' and seeks to fulfil its responsibilities to its customers—consumers and taxpayers—through streamlined and standardised procedures [2]. The New Public Management (NPM) as the instrument of neoliberal policy is embodied by managerialism (see above); on the other hand, NPM has diverse objectives, such as strengthening the devolution of authority to local institutions by reducing the powers of central government [3], reducing state expenditure by promoting public sector organizational reform [4] and promoting the transition from bureaucratic to entrepreneurial organizations [5], so the concept is not clear [6]. However, the essence of NPM includes a desire to strengthen hierarchies based on direct control relationships or indirect governance based on strong contractual relationships between principal– agents [7], and university governance is becoming increasingly centralised in the trend of university reform [8].

Thus, as the organizational model of the university undergoes transformation, there is an emerging *hybridisatio*n within higher education institutions between the demands of modern management and traditional academic norms [9]. Milgrom and Roberts [10] point out that while the value maximisation criterion is presented as a condition for an organization to act as if it were an individual, universities are especially difficult to apply this criterion. In other words, the lack of value to be maximised is behind the emergence of hybridisation. Kezar and Lester [11] and Bess and Dee [12] point to the importance of focusing on the values when examining the organizational behaviour of universities.

The problems caused by hybridisation are not limited to the inner workings of university organizations. Global warming, biodiversity loss, pandemics and economic migration are compounding the human–environment system, and their solution requires not only interdisciplinary research but also transdisciplinary research involving multiple actors, such as policymakers and industry. University and research institutes play a central role in transdisciplinary research [13], but the promotion of collaborative research between different stakeholders is confronted with the same problems of the value maximisation as within the organization itself. The change to a holistic model due to the development of a knowledge-based economy has produced an environment of the organizational failures [14], which is different from the world of frictionless ideal [14], both inside and outside universities. The problem of hybridisation in university can be seen as a prototype of such a problem. However, no analytical framework has been established to systematically understand this problem, and an analytical perspective is required to address the organizational failures caused by differences in values.

This paper aims to study an analytical framework for examining the organizational failures, focusing on organizational culture, which is a representation of members' perceptions, and on universities, where maximising value is considered particularly difficult.

In conducting the above objectives, this paper is structured into six sections, including this section. Section 2 reviews previous research focusing on organizational culture in university along two trends in organizational culture research: interest in the cultural forms of organizational culture and interest in its impact on outcomes. On the one hand, in a knowledge-based economy, universities are required to be responsible for adapting to the external environment based on the transformation of values and ideologies, and in order to construct the analytical framework on 'organizational failure' that this paper aims at, it is necessary to assume a series of mechanisms: friction with neoliberal ideologies and dysfunctional environmental adaptation caused by this friction. This requires an integrative perspective on the two trends in organizational culture studies, but we will confirm that there is no previous research based on such an integrative perspective.

After reviewing the achievements of previous studies, this paper develops an argument for the integration of the two trends mentioned above. Section 3 deals with the issue of value as the basis of cultural forms, discusses the transformation of the

### *Organizational Culture as an Analytical Perspective on 'Organizational Failure' DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113154*

research system under a knowledge-based economy, then refers to the subjective right 'academic freedom' and confirms that university reform is closely related to the issue of value. The frictions within university brought about by university reform are then identified as *intergroup conflict within organization* [15], and a premise is laid down for Section 5, which discusses 'organizational failures'. In the following Section 4, the concept of 'organizational paradigm' is introduced in joining the values discussed in Section 3 and their superstructure, organizational culture. It then focuses on the heterogeneity of the organizational paradigm as a source of hybridisation and presents the 'organizational paradigm analysis framework', which is typified into four categories based on previous research.

After organising the cultural forms, the first trend in organizational culture studies, the following Section 5 presents a second 'organizational failure framework' specific to university, which integrates the organizational paradigms discussed in the previous section, as a framework for analysing why organizational failures occur in university and the mechanisms by which they occur. This framework focuses on the mechanisms between organizational outcomes and organizational culture which is the second trend in organizational culture research, and the two trends are integrated in this section.

In this framework, the discussion is developed in three stages, based on problematic concerns in transaction cost theory. In the first stage, based on previous research, the basic concept of a framework for organizational failure based on transaction cost theory is presented. In the next stage, followed by the leader–follower relationship which can be regarded as a 'principal–agent' relationship, is regarded as a 'transaction' in light of the hybridisation problems currently occurring in university. Furthermore, reflecting the characteristics of university characterised by subcultural diversity, the stakeholder theory, which aims to establish relationships between stakeholders with different values, and the 'organizational paradigm analysis framework' developed in the previous section are used as support in the final stage. This section presents an 'organizational failure framework' specific to university, which sees leader–follower relationships with different organizational paradigms as 'transactions'.

The final section, Section 6, summarises the study and makes reference to its significance and limitations, as well as to its prospects and implications for future research.
