Crises represent an increasingly prevalent conceptualisation of organisational challenges, encompassing such wide-ranging subjects as pandemics, international conflicts, economics, social discord, and learning outcomes in education. However, there is often some ambiguity regarding precisely why a certain challenge might constitute a crisis. Accordingly, there is a multitude of competing crisis definitions focusing on organisational threats, disruptions, uncertainty, unexpectedness, and several other criteria. These variable understandings necessarily lead to variable ideas of what crisis leadership entails. 

Based on a review of existing literature outlining definitions of crises as well as insights from empirical material gathered from Finnish and Swedish higher education, we propose a unified model of crisis conceptualisation applicable to any context, any challenge, and any analytical level. Centred on a set of three overarching variables – severity, urgency, and resilience – we outline a perspective of crisis as a continuum of challenges that exceed, or are perceived to exceed, the ability to manage them.  

This perspective abstracts conventional conceptualisations of individual crises into triggers of crisis conditions, shifting the analytical perspective towards crisis leadership and management processes rather than attempting to trace and untangle what is often a complex web of interlocking situations. The model thus provides an analytical tool for approaching studies of potential, on-going, or past crises or challenges encompassing both education and other contexts – developed from and tested against empirical situations in Nordic higher education. The model also has clear implications, and provides practical tools, for those involved in crisis leadership, such as facilitating responses that account for the intertwining of context, scale, and level of analysis (individual-global) when conducting crisis planning and responses.   

The purpose of this session is to test our model of crisis conceptualisation against a variety of perspectives and possible scenarios, evaluating its logical consistency, comprehensiveness, and analytical utility – as well as initiating and facilitating an in-depth discussion of how crises and challenges, ranging in scale from individual to global, can be understood and approached from a leadership perspective in both education and other contexts.  

To fulfil this purpose, this interactive session will start with an introduction of the proposed model by the chairs and its implications for crisis leadership.  This will be followed by an open discussion that includes all participants about potential refinement and utility of the model for understanding crisis, and especially crisis leadership, in educational contexts as well as other reflections on crises and organisational challenges as empirical phenomena and analytical perspectives. During this discussion, session participants will also be encouraged to contribute issues relating to their own experiences and work surrounding crises or related conditions in education or other contexts – or to suggest competing models of crisis conceptualisation and definition.  

This study focuses on gender differences in the boards of higher education institutions (HEIs), challenging the notion of inherent differences between men and women in board governance. The article provides a gendered analysis of the perceptions of men and women board members about board governance in Finland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden. Contrary to expectations of diverse perceptions, a survey across these countries’ higher education systems revealed that men and women on boards generally shared similar perspectives on board governance. Factors such as professional background, age, and country context proved more significant than gender. The study indicated nuanced differences between men and women board members, such as women exhibiting a more managerialist mindset and emphasizing sustainability. This research contributes to discussions about gender diversity in board governance, extending the exploration to the unique context of European HEIs. The findings provide insights of (gender) diversity and homogeneity of board members and discusses the possible reasons for the homogeneity. For decision-makers and practitioners these insights provide a starting point to shape gender diversity policies for HEIs.

Since the 1990s, Nordic higher education (HE) has undergone significant reforms, integrating market-based elements with traditional academic values. This hybridisation was further intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated digitalisation and remote work. The chapter discusses how these changes led to a blending of physical and digital services, creating a resilient framework for HE institutions (HEI s). The hybridisation process has been crucial in enabling HEI s to adapt to crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, economic challenges, and digitalisation. The chapter highlights the importance of resilience, defined as the ability to withstand and adapt to adverse conditions, in maintaining the core functions of HEI s. Overall, the chapter sets the stage for a comprehensive exploration of how hybridity and resilience mechanisms have shaped and will continue to shape the landscape of Nordic HE.

Hybridity Through Transitions: Crisis and Resilience in Nordic Universities investigates how Nordic higher education institutions adapt to crises and long-term reforms by blending traditional academic values with market-oriented governance. Drawing on empirical studies from Finland, Sweden, and Norway, the book examines hybridity as both a structural condition and a resilience mechanism. It explores how universities respond to challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic, digitalisation, and marketisation, offering a conceptual and comparative framework for understanding institutional transformation. This timely volume is essential reading for scholars, policymakers, and practitioners interested in the evolving landscape of higher education governance and the future of academic institutions.

This chapter summarises insights into the concept of hybridity in Nordic higher education institutions (HEI). Against the backdrop of economic shifts, digital transformation, and crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical conflicts, hybridity emerges as both a challenge and a resilience mechanism. The book identifies hybridity as the coexistence of conflicting logics, roles and practices at institutional, organisational and individual levels. It manifests itself in four domains: institutional logics, missions and responsibilities, work tasks and practices, and the co-creation of knowledge and value. These manifestations reveal how Nordic universities balance traditional academic values with market-driven reforms, integrate digital tools into core academic functions, and engage in collaborative knowledge production. Hybridity also serves as a strategic response to crises, enabling institutions to maintain continuity while navigating competing demands. Further, it promotes resilience by fostering flexibility and innovation in governance, teaching and research. This chapter presents theoretical typologies to understand the emergence of hybridity and its implications for organisational practices and societal engagement. Ultimately, hybridity encapsulates the evolving identity of Nordic HEI s, shaping their ability to adapt to global and local challenges while maintaining academic integrity.

Universities are intimately intertwined with their environments. They are subjects of a wide variety of expectations from external parties, and rely on meeting these expectations to maintain funding, trust and access to valuable infrastructure and information. Research has shown that universities are highly reactive to these pressures, both adapting to and attempting to influence their external realities. Part of this adaptation has taken the form of increasingly complex internal management structures, with growing management teams, new groups of support staff, and hybridisation of both roles and organisational principles.

This chapter examines what happens to these complex structures when put to the test by disruptive crises: Which interests, which actors and which values take priority – and what comes out on the other side? The theoretical approach is based on a combined lens of resource dependence theory and crisis management theory, applied to a material of 21 interviews at three different Swedish higher education institutions.

The results show a breakdown of established pathways during crisis conditions, where the complex structures aimed at anchoring, securing acceptance and reaching consensus are set aside in favour of speed, efficiency, and security – illustrating a disconnect between vision and implementation generated by the tension between fluid, hybrid conceptualisations and the binary system they appear in.

The aim of this article is to advance research on the impact of New Public Management reforms on higher education governance and the evolving role of university boards. More specifically, the study offers a novel international comparative assessment on how public higher education institutions’ board members perceive institutional decision-making processes and boards’ accountability and representation. We use data from a survey administered to individual board members in public HEIs across four European countries. Our results suggest that under New Public Management reforms boards have indeed gained influence in institutional decision-making processes and both internal and external stakeholders view institutions as more responsive to society’s needs. Yet, the representation of specific business and economic interests is much less pronounced while important differences remain across countries and different stakeholders. The article offers novel comparative insights into the hybridisation, divergence, and partial enactment of NPM principles, demonstrating how reform trajectories remain shaped by path-dependent dynamics within national systems and institutions.

In most European countries, university governance models have undergone modernization, the hallmarks of which manifest in new (modernized) governing bodies (i.e., university boards and councils). These governing bodies hold power, both formal and informal, to influence institutional policy and are frequently seen as institutions encapsulating the changing role of universities. To address a paucity of research on the influence of these governing bodies, the current paper examines the views of university board members in four European countries (Finland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden). It reports and discusses the empirical findings of a large-scale online survey of university board members (N = 2455), focusing on their attitudes towards the new roles of universities amid growing societal, political and economic pressure to revisit their major functions and policy principles.

This study examines the perceived governance roles of university boards in Nordic higher education, focusing on Sweden and Finland as case examples. In light of global governance reforms, this research aims to explore how board members in Finnish and Swedish university governance systems perceive their roles. The theoretical framework builds on layered governance styles and the literature on board roles. The findings contribute to the discussion of Nordic higher education governance by exploring the visions of board members regarding board governance, which is a relatively under-researched area. This comparative approach not only sheds light on commonalities due to shared historical, social, and political ties between the two countries but also highlights differences through an analysis of key factors and issues that distinguish board governance in these countries. This analysis enriches the understanding of board governance in the Nordic context.

The increasing dependence on knowledge as a driver of societal development during the twenty-first century has placed the governance of academia in a state of transformation. Increasing pressure for academia to direct the production, proliferation, and utilisation of academic knowledge towards the perceived needs and interests of government, industry and interests groups have manifested themselves in a diverse set of conditions for funding of education and research. For academics in general, and for early career researchers in particular, the result is an increasing dependence on external funding. In response, many universities have taken steps to introduce restrictions on form, content, and publication of research – as well as what types of employments are made available for researchers in the first place.

This study explores the relationship between employment security and reliance on external funding in Finland and Sweden – two countries that have recently adopted tenure-track models. The exploration is based on material from the APIKS survey regarding duration of employment contracts, exposure to expectations, and sources of funding. Based on this analysis, we discuss whether tenure can effectively provide a healthy degree of independence and academic freedom in a funding landscape characterised by a high degree of competition for research funding.

The results of the study provide insights into how the transformation of conditions for academic work interact with fundamental values of academia, and open avenues for further research into how academics deal with the pressures of modern career structures.