The rise of the knowledge society has transformed the governance of higher education, generating tensions often characterised as a struggle between collegiality and managerialism. However, the specific descriptions of how the two models relate to each other and where the balance is being struck vary significantly. Such variation is not necessarily tied to the systems as such, but could also be rooted in differences in perceptions and expectations—which provides the focus of this study. Drawing on Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, field and doxa, the study utilises survey data from the Academic Profession in Knowledge-based Society (APIKS) project, focusing on comparing Sweden and Finland as representatives of a Nordic regional context. Using descriptive and inferential statistics, the study tests three basic hypotheses collectively stating that an academic’s perception of the governance models within their organisation varies in relation to their work experience, country, and job satisfaction. The analysis confirms all three hypotheses, providing locally embedded explanations for varying characterisations of purportedly global governance trends. The study challenges descriptions of a cohesive Nordic model of higher education and highlights the inherently contextual nature of how perceptions of governance are formed.