The idea of institutional autonomy
Universities typically describe themselves as strategic, independent organisations. They develop institutional plans, set research priorities, define teaching portfolios and make decisions about growth, investment and positioning. Governance structures are designed to support this autonomy, with councils, senates and executive teams responsible for steering the institution.
Through this lens, universities are clearly in control. They decide what to prioritise, where to invest and how to differentiate themselves in an increasingly competitive global environment.
This narrative is both familiar and, to a large extent, true. However, it is only part of the story.
Looking more closely at decision-making
When we examine how decisions are made in practice, a more complex picture begins to emerge. Many of the choices universities make appear to be shaped, and sometimes constrained, by forces that sit outside the institution.
These influences are not hidden. They are widely understood and often discussed. Yet they are rarely considered together as part of a broader system that shapes institutional behaviour.
Of course, any organisation has to react to external market forces, but should university’s be different?
Four categories of influence are particularly important.
Signals, resources, rules and markets
First, there are signals. Rankings, league tables and bibliometric indicators provide visible measures of performance. They influence how universities are perceived externally and, increasingly, how they evaluate themselves internally. Movement in a ranking can trigger strategic responses, even when the underlying methodology is only partially aligned with institutional priorities.
Second, there are resources. Funding models, whether driven by government allocation, research grants or tuition income, shape what is financially viable. Decisions about programme offerings, research focus and staffing are often closely tied to where resources can be secured or sustained.
Third, there are rules. Regulatory frameworks, accreditation requirements and national policies define what universities must do to operate. These constraints can influence curriculum design, quality assurance processes and even organisational structure.
Fourth, there are markets. Student demand, employer expectations and competitive positioning all play a role in shaping institutional behaviour. Universities respond to shifts in demand by adjusting programmes, marketing strategies and delivery models.
Individually, each of these influences is understandable. Together, they form a system that exerts a continuous and often subtle pressure on decision-making.
Decision or response?
This raises a fundamental question.
If universities consistently adjust their behaviour in response to these external forces, to what extent are they making independent decisions? At what point does responsiveness become dependency?
Universities do not operate in isolation, and nor should they. Engagement with funding bodies, regulators and society is essential. Responsiveness is part of being a relevant and responsible institution.
Yet there is a distinction between responding to the environment and being shaped by it.
For example, when a university changes its research priorities to align more closely with ranking indicators, is that a strategic choice or a reaction to external measurement systems? When programmes are expanded or closed based primarily on student demand, is that institutional strategy or market response? If regulatory bodies (whether government or trade bodies) change their policies to meet their own demands, should universities follow suit?
The boundaries of autonomy
Universities still make decisions. Leadership teams debate options, weigh trade-offs and set direction. However, these decisions are often made within boundaries that are not of the institution’s own making.
Those boundaries are defined by funding constraints, regulatory requirements, reputational signals and competitive pressures. They shape not only what decisions are made, but also which options are considered viable in the first place.
Autonomy exists, but it is bounded. Strategy is exercised, but within a structured environment that influences outcomes.
Understanding these boundaries is important for governance. It helps explain why institutions that appear different often behave in similar ways, and why strategic plans across the sector can converge despite efforts to differentiate.
A system-level perspective
Looking at higher education through this lens shifts the focus away from individual decisions and towards the system in which those decisions are made.
Rankings, funding systems, regulatory frameworks and market dynamics do not operate independently. They interact, reinforce each other and, over time, shape patterns of behaviour across the sector.
This helps explain why certain trends emerge repeatedly. Growth in particular subject areas, increased emphasis on research outputs, expansion of international activity and investment in reputation-building are not simply institutional choices. They are, at least in part, responses to system-level incentives.
For leaders and governing bodies, this perspective is useful. It allows for a more realistic understanding of what can be controlled and what must be navigated.
Where does power really sit?
Universities remain central actors in higher education. They make decisions, employ staff, educate students and produce research. Their role is not diminished. But their decisions are shaped by a wider ecosystem of influences that extend beyond institutional boundaries.
This leads to a question that is worth considering more explicitly:
Where does real decision-making power sit in higher education?
Is it primarily within universities themselves, expressed through leadership and governance structures? Or does it increasingly reside in the systems that shape incentives, define success and allocate resources?
And if it is the latter, what does that mean for how universities think about strategy?
About the author
Graham Kendall is the Acting Vice Chancellor at GlobalNxt University in Malaysia and an Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham. He has held senior leadership roles across the UK and Asia, including Vice-Chancellor, Provost and Pro-Vice-Chancellor positions. His work focuses on higher education governance, research strategy and the systems that shape academic behaviour.
If your institution is reflecting on how external pressures are influencing strategy and decision-making, he welcomes the opportunity to discuss these challenges and opportunities.