**6. Conclusion and discussion**

This paper has focused on the heterogeneity of values surrounding 'freedom'— 'freedom as control' on the part of management and 'academic freedom' on the part of faculty—as an essential issue of hybridisation that has emerged in universities in a knowledge-based economy and has proposed two analytical frameworks to treat organizational culture arising from this as an analytical perspective of organizational failure. In the first framework, the concept of organizational paradigm was introduced in an attempt to connect metaphors, which are the perceptions of values held by university members, with the concept of organizational culture arising from them, and a categorisation of these paradigms was attempted, and an 'organizational paradigm analysis framework' was presented. The second analytical framework presented in this paper is the 'organizational failure framework' specific to university in order to examine why organising in universities has not progressed easily and to avoid organizational failure. This framework proposed the necessity to focus not only on governance and leadership, such as procedures and structures, but also on the type of organizational paradigm that leaders and followers have.

We would like to mention the significance of this research in light of the above. Universities are required to be responsive to their external environment, and in order to achieve this, we must focus on conflicts of values. Organizational culture studies have two trends: interest in the cultural form of organizational culture and interest in its impact on outcomes, but in order to examine the above issues, it is necessary to integrate the two trends, but until now, no such efforts have been made. The significance of this study was the integration of these two trends into a single framework, with regard to cultural forms in the 'organizational paradigm analysis framework' and the impact on outcomes in the 'organizational paradigm analysis framework'. Effective policy recommendations will be possible through the hypotheses formulated by the NPM and the execution of analyses based on the two frameworks.

On the other hand, a limitation of this study is that it does not incorporate the perspective of comparing transaction costs based on a quantitative perspective within the 'organizational failure framework'. However, this is an unavoidable consequence. As mentioned in Section 5, universities are composed of stakeholders with diverse values and cannot maximise value by measuring quantitative costs and benefits, so there is little significance in incorporating such a perspective into this framework. Rather, the purpose of this framework is to present a framework for pre-regulation [52] against opportunism and potential conflicts that obstruct 'cooperation, involvement and responsibility', which is also a principle of stakeholder theory, as described in Section 5, and the above problematic concerns overlap with those of transaction cost theory. It will be necessary to clarify the limitations of the above based on the characteristics of university. Another limitation in this study is that the framework focuses on the relationship between leaders and followers but does not reflect the perspective of organizational learning, especially among followers.

Three directions for future research should be mentioned. First, with regard to the 'organizational paradigm analysis framework', the validity as a constitutive concept of organizational paradigm and the differences between types of organizational paradigm should be clarified through empirical research on the linkage between metaphor and organizational culture. Second, with regard to the 'organizational failure framework', it is important to examine the homogeneity or heterogeneity of organizational paradigms between the university executive (leaders) and the university faculty and staff (followers), as well as the types of these paradigms. Based on the above findings, it is important to identify how the effective 'transactions' of governance and leadership between leaders and followers, aimed at establishing cooperation and engagement, vary according to the organizational paradigm. As a research direction, the last point I would like to make is the importance of research based on property rights: Jones [53] provides valuable insights into the relationship between organizational culture, transaction costs and property rights, but from an empirical perspective, it is important to clarify the relationship between the organizational paradigm that leaders have and property rights. Because property rights provide a legitimate basis for the exclusion of followers who do not 'go along with a leader's will', and leaders may rely on that legitimacy to guide followers towards the achievement of arbitrary organizational objectives. This perspective is crucial in deterring organizational opportunism and realising organizational responsiveness to the external environment through leader–follower alignment.

As the organizational model of universities shifts towards a 'holistic model' [1] in a knowledge-based economy, a focus on organizational culture will provide a useful analytical perspective in clarifying intergroup conflict within organizations regarding their 'values'. Although this paper has focused on the internal university, the two analytical frameworks presented in this paper can also be extended to the analytical framework of failures in collaboration between industry and universities and in 'transdisciplinary research' [13]. Kandawinna, Mallawaarachchi and Vijerathne [54], who examined the requirements for the formation of 'public–private partnerships', which are partnerships between universities and industry, found that organizations with different interests can be successful in achieving common objectives through discussion and communication. This finding shows the importance of formulating the metaphor between stakeholders. On the other hand, the effectiveness of the means of establishing 'transactions' between these stakeholders will vary depending on the objectives and commerciality of the collaborative projects they work on. Organizational culture may provide an analytical perspective when building these relationships runs into difficulties.

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