La Trobe and Lincoln Merger: The Process and Outcome
| Date | 01 April 1992 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239210020525 |
| Published date | 01 April 1992 |
| Author | D.T. Gamage |
| Subject Matter | Education |
La Trobe and
Lincoln Merger
73
La Trobe and Lincoln Merger:
The Process and Outcome
D.T. Gamage
University of
Newcastle,
Australia
In both law and business practice, a merger takes place with the acquisition
or incorporation of one or more corporate institution(s) by another in which
the more important one survives, while the other(s) lose(s) its/their corporate
existence. Merger can be conceptualized as part of a continuum of institutional
co-operation/co-ordination/unity organization continuum
in
which merger
is
the
extreme form of co-operation. Humpal has defined merger as "an event of
organizational change wherein the object of
change
is to create one system from
two
or more previously distinct entities"
[1].
In
a
more comprehensive definition,
the term merger or amalgamation is used to represent any situation in which
assets and liabilities are legally consolidated or
in
which the combination of
two
or more organizations results in the transfer of managerial prerogatives to a
single governing body
[2].
Business mergers
in
which organizations legally bind
themselves together are a characteristic feature of the industrial economy in
the US. The origin and spread of institutional mergers in the sphere of higher
education also could be traced to the same American system.
Currently institutional mergers have become a common feature in the
Australian higher education sector, which consisted of universities and colleges
of advanced education (CAEs). In
1981,
30 CAEs were forced to merge on the
basis of achieving economies of scale and also as a measure of reducing
governmental expenditure
[3].
In December 1987, the Federal Minister of
Education issued a Policy Discussion Paper (Green Paper) on Higher Education,
outlining the creation of a unified national system (UNS) of higher education
and the demise of the binary (universities and CAEs) system. The Minister
emphasized the importance of the creation of a smaller number of larger
institutions and indicated a carrot and stick policy of funding on the basis of
student numbers
[4].
The proposed measure effectively limited the options
available to the higher educational institutions, resulting in a flurry of activity
in
institutional partner seeking, as it seemed no longer economical to maintain
smaller
CAEs
or
universities.
By
the time this article
was being
prepared, almost
all Australian CAEs were in different stages of integration or in the process
of merging or negotiating mergers with the existing universities or creation
of
new universities through the merger of several CAEs.
The author wishes to acknowledge with much appreciation the financial support received from
the Research Management Committee of the University of Newcastle and the comments and
suggestions made by Professor John A. Ramsland, the Director of the School of Humanities
of the University of Newcastle, Professor Barry A. Sheehan, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor
(Resources), the University of Melbourne, and Professor Brian Crittenden of
La
Trobe University.
Journal of Educational
Administration. Vol. 30 No. 4.
1992.
pp. 73-89. © MCB
University Press. 0957-8234
Journal of
Educational
Administration
30,4
74
However, the merger between
La
Trobe University and the Lincoln Institute
of Health Sciences (LIHS) did not fall into this forced merger category. Both
institutions emphasized the merger as voluntary, even though a closer
examination of the events leading to the merger reveals that the existence of
certain external factors had eliminated a different outcome. Negotiations for
the merger commenced six-and-a-half years before the release of the Green
Paper
in
December
1987,
while the formal merger
was
effected
six
months before
the release of the Australian Government Policy Statement (White Paper) on
Higher Education in June 1988[5]. Dawkins's Green Paper referred to the
proposed
La
Trobe-Lincoln merger as
an
exemplar, because it claimed that there
was
an annual estimated
saving
of
1.4
million
dollars,
indicating the
type of savings
which could be expected with the creation of larger institutions[4, p. 31]. By
1990,
the new La Trobe University had completed a period of two years as
an amalgamated institution, providing a good opportunity for
a
comprehensive
case study of an institutional merger.
In the circumstances, the researcher decided to undertake
an
in-depth study
of the amalgamation (merger) between
La
Trobe University and the
LIHS.
The
archival material relating to the process of negotiations and the management
of
the
amalgamated institution was evaluated followed by interviews with most
of
the
key personnel
who
were involved in the operation of the two institutions
prior to the formal merger, in the process of negotiations leading to the merger
as well as the management of the new
La
Trobe University. Those interviewed
included: senior administrators, senior academics, community and student
leaders and general
staff.
Interview tapes were transcribed, compared and
evaluated against the comments made by each compared with the archival
records for the purpose of preparing this article. In this article, the researcher
proposes to review the literature
on
institutional mergers
along
with
a
historical
survey of the two institutions involved
in
the case study, the issues which caused
a seven-year delay in effecting the merger, the rationale and the goals to be
achieved, progress made towards the realization of the set goals, and an
evaluation of the achievements.
Institutional Mergers: La Trobe and LIHS on the Track
The first significant records in the form of public documentation on mergers
became available only
in 1940
when the United States Office of Education began
publishing the
Education
Directory.
The movement for institutional mergers
of the early 1940s was predominantly private and, as Hodgkinson has noted,
the majority of these mergers followed the general pattern of moving up the
ladder in terms of level of the degree(s) awarded[6]. In the late 1940s there
was an increase in public sector activity, as two- and four-year colleges were
merged to form state universities. During the 1950s there were 49 institutional
mergers, of
which 22
were private. The 1960s were a period which witnessed
tremendous growth in the higher education industry in the US. There were
83 institutional mergers during this particular decade. According to Boberg,
from
1940
to
1978
the US Office of Higher Education has recorded institutional
mergers varying from one to 23 per year with the exception of only one year
during which no mergers have taken place
[7].
To continue reading
Request your trial