barriers to effective quality management and leadership
TRANSCRIPT
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 1/28
Higher Education 44: 185–212, 2002.
© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.185
Barriers to effective quality management and leadership: Case
study of two academic departments
JETHRO NEWTON Head of the Academic Office, North East Wales Institute of Higher Education, Plas Coch,
Wrexham, LL11 2AW, Wales, UK (E-mail: [email protected])
Abstract. This paper reports results of ‘insider research’ at a UK college of higher educa-
tion (NewColl). In drawing on a ‘ground-level’ approach, and building on earlier work
(Newton 1999a,b), it provides insights into ‘front-line’ academics’ views and perspectives
on organisational change and the implementation of quality policy, and points to challenges
for institutional leadership.
The paper begins by considering the impact of the quality revolution on the academiccommunity and its relationships, and then looks at how policy implementation, leadership, and
the management of change can be conceptualised. The case study element consists of profiles
of two academic departments which, in the main body of the research, displayed markedly
more negative responses to organisational change and the implementation of revised quality
assurance arrangements than other academic units. Drawing on interview data which provide
‘thick description’ (Geertz 1973), a set of explanatory concepts is presented which help to
explain why the two schools show themselves to be divergent in comparison with others. These
concepts centre on issues around ‘psychological contracts’ (Handy 1984, 1993); leadership,
communication and the management of change; collegialism and professional accountability;
and reciprocal accountability and mutual trust. The paper goes on to consider the importance
of ‘the discretion debate’ (Lipsky 1976, 1980; Prottas 1978) and proposes that, by stressing
‘ownership’, ‘professional autonomy’, and ‘self-assessment’, quality assurance systems and
quality management in higher education run the risk of exposing or exacerbating the ‘problem’
of discretion for institutional managers and leaders. The paper concludes by identifying a
number of lessons which can be drawn from the case study for quality managers and academic
administrators.
Keywords: discretion debate, factors influencing perspectives of ‘front-line’ academics,
insider research, leadership, management of change, policy implementation, professional
autonomy and accountability, the ‘psychological contract’, quality management
1. Quality in higher education: Impact on the academic community
and its relationships
One of the main legacies of the 1990s is that quality has become a centralconcern in higher education globally. This development has taken place in the
context of a changed relationship between the state and higher education in
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 2/28
186 JETHRO NEWTON
which demands for accountability have become paramount. Within this there
has been a dramatic increase in student numbers, a sharply reducing unit of
resource, higher student-staff ratios and less funding for books and equip-
ment. In the UK context, in his critique of the introduction of external quality
assessment, Trow (1994) discussed these developments with reference to the
rise of ‘managerialism’ and the withdrawal of the ‘trust’ accorded to higher
education, particularly in the wake of the New Right policies associated with
Thatcherism.
These changes in the context and conditions of academic work (Smyth
1995; Martin 1999), when set alongside the pressures of external account-
ability, managerialism, and a higher level of external scrutiny by external
monitoring bodies, have led the academic community and others to question
whether, with a general movement towards an American-style mass higher
education system, quality can be maintained or managed effectively. It has
led to the acknowledgement that the challenges to institutional leadership in
today’s universities are considerable.There are other dimensions to this debate that have a bearing upon how
we understand the ‘academic community’ in today’s higher education. In
the UK context where, as Harvey (1994, p. 49) puts it, “the British govern-
ment has used managerialism to impose a ‘command economy’ on higher
education”, it is not surprising that many academics have grown increasingly
sceptical of, and resistant to, the growth of the ‘quality industry’ and the
‘quality burden’. For these staff, as for Trow (1994), this is often viewed
in terms of academic de-professionalisation. As this paper suggests, in view
of the extension of the monitoring activities of external quality bodies, and
the development of ‘robust’ internal quality monitoring arrangements, there
is no doubt that increased accountability and ‘intrusion’ have presented asignificant challenge for institutions and staff at all levels. For many ‘front-
line’ staff this has led to suspicion of management motives, to the breakdown
of reciprocal accountability and trust, and perhaps even to an irresolvable
tension between the ‘corporation’ and the ‘collegium’. For senior managers
it has led to increasing challenges in terms of leadership and institutional
management.
2. Conceptualising policy implementation, leadership and the
management of change
It is now commonplace to depict and conceptualise the university as an‘organisation’. As Weil (1994, p. 24) noted in her discussion of the emergence
in higher education of what were then relatively new notions of organisation
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 3/28
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 187
and management: “Five years ago, to refer to a university or college as an
‘organisation’ ran contrary to the deeply embedded currents of professional
autonomy and ‘collegiality’ in decision making”. But higher education has
moved on from McNay’s ‘collegial academy’ (McNay 1995), or the ‘tribes
and territories’ portrayed in Becher’s academic community (Becher 1989).
However, as Wilson (1992) observes, in much of the organisational change
literature it is the management of change rather than the analysis of change
which predominates. For Burnes (1996), such approaches are open to criti-
cism due to “their limited applicability to the range and complexity of
situations found in everyday organisational life” (p. 110). A linked issue
when analysing change is the extent to which change processes should be
viewed as ‘planned’ or ‘emergent’. In this paper, following Burnes (1996),
the emergent approach is viewed as attractive since it “stresses the developing
and unpredictable nature of change” (Burnes 1996, p. 187). It recognises
that some organisations “operate in a turbulent, dynamic and unpredictable
environment . . . to which they continually have to adapt” (p. 194).It follows that one of the principal messages of my research is the
importance of context for the management of policy initiatives. What is
achievable with ‘quality’ in a higher education organisation should not be
seen as a blank sheet. The size, stage of development, strategic priorities,
blend of organisational politics, and even the particular vulnerabilities of
a college, are key considerations. They represent a complex combination
of constraint and opportunity. This raises questions around whether organi-
sations are manageable entities. Some insights into this are afforded by
considering the notions of ‘culture’, ‘cultural change’ and ‘organisational
culture’. ‘Culture’, it is argued, should be viewed pluralistically; ‘organisa-
tional culture’ entails competing value systems and should be viewed associally constructed by actors rather than merely enacted by members of an
organisation. Indeed, there are dangers in viewing organisations as entirely
rational entities. Moreover, my research confirms that it is prudent to avoid
uncritical notions of the manager as ‘change hero’, or as the sole determinant
of change.
Context and circumstances are also key considerations when conceptual-
ising leadership. As Middlehurst (1991, p. 3) suggests: “Leadership is linked
both to a context and a constituency, it is commonly viewed as a contingent
construct”. Following Adair (1983), Middlehurst (1997, p. 188) also notes
the “symbiotic relationship between change and leadership”. Drawing atten-
tion to Adair’s (1983) observations on changing contexts, uncertainty and
instability, Middlehurst observes that: “The existence and the experience of a turbulent environment . . . creates both a psychological and a practical need
for leadership” (p. 188).
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 4/28
188 JETHRO NEWTON
Distinctions are drawn in the literature between ‘leadership’, often
portrayed as vision, direction and institutional strategy, and ‘management’,
depicted as policy execution and competence in particular functional areas
(Partington and Brodie 1992, p. 3; Middlehurst 1991, p. 10). However, it
is not intended in this paper to explore the debate around definitions and
distinctions between leadership and management. A more pragmatic view
is taken. Accordingly, with Ramsden (1998, p. 107), it is suggested that
‘leaders’ are also ‘managers’ and, following Ramsden (1998), ‘leadership’
is used as shorthand for ‘leadership and management’.
3. Case study: Profile of two academic departments
3.1. Institutional project: Development and implementation of a quality
assurance system
The context for the study has been reported more fully elsewhere (Newton
1999a,b). For present purposes relevant features can be gleaned from the
rationale underpinning the organisational change and policy initiative at the
research site, a higher education college (NewColl). The project involved
developing quality assurance procedures to enable NewColl to enable it to
fulfil its vision of achieving ‘University College’ status. The college had been
established as a higher education corporation in 1993. The development aims
of the project centred around the task of reconciling the tension between the
demands of accountability and those of improvement. This posed a consid-
erable challenge in terms of quality management, the management of change
and institutional leadership.
3.2. ‘Insider research’ project
In addition to acting as project manager for the design and implementa-
tion of quality assurance systems, I was also, simultaneously, conducting a
longitudinal, ethnographic study of the college. The research aims included
investigation of whether, in the view of external quality monitoring bodies,
and academic and academic support staff, the purposes of the quality assur-
ance system had been met; whether internal and external accountability
requirements had been satisfied, and quality improvement facilitated for staff
and students.
A range of methods and data sources was used to convert ‘thin’ into ‘thick’descriptions (Geertz 1973, ch. 1) and to provide insights into staff perceptions
of the achievements of quality assurance procedures and how these compared
with official views of external quality monitoring bodies. The methods were:
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 5/28
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 189
− five-year ‘close-up’ ethnographic study and reflective practice
− questionnaire survey of academic managers and ‘front-line’ academic
staff
− tape-recorded interviews with individuals and focus groups
− desk research and analysis of institutional documents and external
quality reports
3.3. Profiles of two ‘deviant’ schools
The empirical focal point in this paper is provided by two academic units
(School A and School B) which, in the results of the main body of the
research, displayed markedly more negative questionnaire and interview
responses on a number of issues in comparison with other Schools. This
polarisation related to several issues, principally:
− views on the mechanics and technology of NewColl’s quality system
−the extent to which it was seen as delivering improvements for staff andstudents
− views generally on organisational change at NewColl and elsewhere in
the higher education sector in the UK
This divergence required explanation and this is dealt with later in the
paper where factors influencing academics’ views of higher education policy
and change are discussed through identification of a series of explanatory
concepts.
To give background detail, and to assist the assessment and evaluation
of the case study elements, the paper provides a profile of each of the two
academic departments. Each of NewColl’s constituent elements brought its
own cultural elements into the incorporation process in 1993. Pre-1993, each
had its own distinctive identity. Only School A, with an education and human-
ities portfolio, and located initially during the study period on its original
college of education campus, had a strong background history in higher
education; School B’s higher education background had been focused, prior
to 1993, on non-degree, Business and Technology Education Council (BTEC)
higher national diploma provision.
School A
School A, particularly the education element, displayed several character-
istics which set it apart from other schools. As a college of education, this
unit had proceeded through several crisis periods in which teacher educa-
tion provision at NewColl had been under threat. The school, and the formerfaculty and college of education in which it had its origins, had a long track
record of links with NewColl’s somewhat traditional and conservative valid-
ating university (UVal), both in terms of curriculum development and course
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 6/28
190 JETHRO NEWTON
validation. Therefore, its history and experience of quality was that of a less
intrusive, almost ‘cloisterist’ (Harvey 1995a), collegial-style approach. This
background may go some way towards explaining the School’s less positive
view of progress made with the implementation of NewColl’s new quality
assurance arrangements. Thus, paradoxically, while staff in the education
area were in some senses more mature in relation to quality, and more used
to being inspected externally, they were also less willing to accept a new
centralised system along with the transparency and internal accountabilities
that went with it – especially as that system was associated with a central
administration long held in suspicion by former college of education staff. For
them, a college-wide system was an additional system signifying duplication
and an unwelcome extra burden.
A strong feeling, on the part of ‘front-line’ academics, of neglect by
‘the centre’ and by NewColl’s senior managers, had been compounded by
negative staff feelings towards the School’s own senior managers. Also, prob-
lems of location meant that communication on new institutional initiativestook longer to filter through. Geographical separation had also led to some-
thing of a ‘siege mentality’ on the part of the senior staff in the school as well
as its teaching staff.
These leadership and communication issues were also compounded in this
school by the presence of a number of academic staff who for a prolonged
period had been seriously disaffected from both department and college. The
Head was confronted by problems and personalities which were intractable
and which were only ‘resolved’, effectively, when staff left or took early
retirement.
From such circumstances it is possible to distil a combination of situ-
ational factors which appear to have influenced staff responses to change ingeneral and attempts to embed a new quality assurance system in particular.
Firstly, leadership and communication. Secondly, the presence of a significant
number of individual members of staff opposed to change initiatives and who,
in the view of their middle managers in the School, had remained largely
unaccountable for far too long. Thirdly, a number of resource-related and
communication issues stemming from a period during which a site reloca-
tion was being planned for. Fourthly, a point was reached when staff of the
School began to recognise the efficacy of the new quality assurance systems,
since both external and internal quality monitoring reports were beginning to
expose the deficiencies in the professionalism and performance of some staff
and, by implication, were raising questions about the way that professional
autonomy and discretion were being exercised.
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 7/28
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 191
School B
Some of the factors and circumstances outlined in School A apply to School
B, with a course portfolio based on management and business and also
comprising, for the most part, staff who had been relocated to NewColl’s
main site. Here too the staff group had developed a strong and distinctive
identity, with some staff displaying a conservative tendency during the period
of change which NewColl was undergoing. A further problematic factor in
common with School A was the question of leadership.
In the years leading up to incorporation, before any cross-institutional
quality framework had been established, this academic unit viewed itself as
having developed a strong sense of teamwork and a relatively clear sense
of roles and responsibilities. Across the same period there was a degree
of tension between staff of the School and senior management at college
level regarding the college’s aspiration to develop the undergraduate port-
folio in each academic unit. This tension stemmed in part from the staff’s
reluctance to contribute to development work until additional resources hadbeen made available. It is noteworthy though that, as Becher (1989), McFar-
lane (1997a,b) and Danielli and Thomas (1998) have argued, business and
management studies staff can be amongst the most difficult to manage given
their tendency towards a somewhat anarchic and sceptical view of the world,
borne partly from a social science background or a track record in the external
world and their assumption that they are well placed to evaluate and reflect
critically upon the performance of senior management.
School B’s historical validation links with UVal, the validating university,
and its quality assurance background were also a factor. As with School A’s
degree level work, these links were by and large conservative, paternalist-
collegial and involved a noticeably light external touch. In some respectsstaff were less likely to accept a new, college-wide quality system since
they already had their own established practices, including arrangements
for course review and monitoring. From their perspective they were ‘doing
quality’ anyway.
When a new Head of School was appointed, from a ‘new’ university, the
appointee was viewed very much as an ‘outsider’ and as compounding staff
perceptions of an ‘anti-School B’ agenda on the part of senior management.
There was a tendency at the time for anything associated with management to
be mistrusted. There was also a feeling that, during a period of new initiatives,
no one had taken the opportunity to consult the very body of staff who saw
themselves as having expertise in matters over which the senior team were
deliberating. These circumstances combined to produce a degree of aliena-tion, a sense of deprofessionalisation and a perceived loss of autonomy and
discretion. At an individual level, staff felt they had no great influence over
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 8/28
192 JETHRO NEWTON
their individual situations. This might account for why the School’s survey
responses in respect of change in higher education generally, and change
within NewColl, were quite so negative in comparison with other Schools,
with the exception of School A.
4. Factors influencing academics’ views of higher education policy and
change: Eplanatory concepts
4.1. The psychological contract
It is apparent from each of the profiles of the two ‘polarised’ schools, that
academic staff were faced with circumstances which combined to produce
conditions in which low morale, and a degree of alienation and resignation
were able to flourish. This, it is suggested, was bound up to a significant
extent with matters emanating from staff concerns in each school regarding
perceptions of, and relationships with senior managers in each School andalso, in the case of School A in particular, NewColl’s senior management
generally. Such concerns were manifested in feelings, on the part of academic
staff, of neglect by school management, and of a lack of control and influence
over matters affecting the academic units concerned.
In their discussion of leadership and management in higher education,
Middlehurst and Elton (1992, p. 255) cite Handy’s notion of ‘psychological
contracts’ (Handy 1984, 1993), described as “sets of expectations, between
individuals and the different sub-organisations to which they relate within the
organisation as a whole”. It is suggested in the paper that this idea of ‘the
psychological contract’ can assist in the present evaluation of the School A
and School B. As Handy (1993) puts it:Just as in most work situations there is a legal contract between the
organisation and the individual . . . so there is an implied, usually unstated,
psychological contract between the individual and the organization . . . We
have a set of results that we expect from the organisation, results that will
satisfy certain of our needs and in return for which we will expend some
of our energies and talents (p. 45).
The utility of this concept of ‘the psychological contract’ is illustrated by the
observations of respondents from each of the schools concerned. The first,
Respondent 24, a course team member in School B, clearly has a perception
that in her case ‘the psychological contract’ is severely strained and her work
undervalued:
I think that’s a general problem, that you try your best and all you ever get
are brickbats . . . Occasionally a student will say to you “I enjoyed that”,
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 9/28
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 193
and you think, hey, that was nice. Never from management do you get any
comment about trying hard. I mean you may not have got it all right all
the time but most people are not skiving and they’re doing their best and
just an acknowledgement of that goes a long way (p. 24).
Such comments resonate with what Ramsden (1998, p. 76) refers to as
“recognition of teaching and staff morale”, or what Shore and Roberts (1995,
p. 13) describe, rather more uncompromisingly, as a sense of “permanent
institutionalised angst” felt by some lecturers. Ramsden (1998, p. 76) argues
that “a critical aspect of staff alienation from their universities is their feeling
of lack of reward and recognition for academic work, especially teaching”.
In the second example Respondent 42, a course team member in School
A, indicated that management at school and college level had neglected to
attend to small but important matters which could have served to maintain
staff morale and commitment. Though acknowledging being caught between
“the Scylla of financial constraints and the Charybdis of political interferencein the shape of the course and its implementation” (p. 42), nevertheless:
Having said that, I think it’s all too easy for financial constraints to be
used as the sole reason for poor quality. They [the financial constraints]
are so irritating, on daily basis . . . that they inevitably loom large and it’s
foolish of management to have allowed this to happen, when some fairly
small-scale funding would alleviate the problems (p. 42).
Respondent 41, a retired Vice Principal from another college, drawing on
experience of leadership and management at his own institution and on expe-
rience as an institutional quality auditor in the wider academic community,
attached great importance to such matters as those alluded to in theseexamples; particularly in respect of the quality of the work situation of
academic staff and how this might affect their commitment to the organisa-
tion. He locates this in the broader context of the underlying purposes of
an institution’s quality system and the danger that systems can become self-
serving unless they are perceived as being associated by staff with genuine
attempts to seek improvements for staff and students. He argues that:
There are three, I suppose, basic anxieties about quality assurance
systems. There’s the question of The . . . purposes served, the kinds of
processes and structures adopted and the difference they make to insti-
tutional performance and I think that . . . in terms of the purposes served,
you want to seek an improvement to the deal offered to the students andthe quality of working life of staff. I mean those are the two things that
I think are important . . . the quality of provision of service to students
and the quality of working life for staff, so that as well as the contract of
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 10/28
194 JETHRO NEWTON
service, there’s also a psychological contract that makes them committed
to the organisation (p. 41).
Such responses imply that, for some at least, ‘quality’ becomes a ‘bolt-
on’ extra, not the foundation on which other activities are built. As Harvey
(1995a) points out: “Quality systems are seen as increasing work-loads and
administrative burdens on teachers who are already expected to do more”
(p. 131). This is hinted at in the following exchange:
Respondent 24:
I’m not as directly involved in it now as I was a year or two back. I’m
just doing my small bit in the Year Tutor way . . . I could see a lot of
plusses to the system but in practice now after its been running for a
year or two I think we’re just finding the quickest way around it, a lot
of the time, which may not be a bad thing (p. 24).
Researcher:
Was that because you suspect that other people aren’t doing it or aren’t
taking it seriously?
Respondent 24:
I think there is a feeling about others getting away with it (p. 24).
Respondent 26:
I think there’s also the feeling that however many times you weigh the
pig, it doesn’t get any fatter. There is an element there that, you know,
no matter how much you put into this quality assurance system, at
the end of the day the pig is getting thinner and thinner. You learn
to work with less, in worse working conditions, and I think that
does encourage you to think, well, do I really need to put so much
energy and effort into this when we are working in, I think, decreasing
working conditions and decreasing resources (p. 26).
Two observations are offered on this exchange, concluding as it does with
an air of resignation on the part of Respondent 26. Firstly, we are alerted toMiddlehurst’s (1997, p. 54) warning that “overconcentration on ‘rendering
an account’ to external audiences can take time and resources away from
delivering high-quality education . . . or finding out the real needs of students
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 11/28
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 195
and sponsors”. Secondly, another possibility is that, as Harvey and Knight
(1996, p. 100) note:
accountability approaches tend to demotivate staff who are already
involved in innovation and quality initiatives. Not only do they face theadded burden of responding to external scrutiny there is also a feeling
of being manipulated, of not being trusted or valued, by managers and
outside agencies.
Respondent 41 is quite emphatic regarding the challenges, from the point
of view of ‘the psychological contract’, which are involved in developing
systems which have “rigor and integrity”. Speaking of his own former
institution he reflected that:
One message . . . relayed throughout the institution every year, particu-
larly with annual monitoring, particularly with validation, was the “so
what?” question . . . asked. In other words what differences, if any, arethese systems, which are claiming time and energy from staff, making
to our performance in terms of the quality of the courses that we’re
. . . designing and getting validated, or in terms of the quality of provision
to students, day in day out, week in week out, year in year out. And the
reminder was put in neon lights as it were, shouted out each year, that
if you believe as staff operating these systems that they’ll not make any
difference, they’re wasting your time, they’re meaningless rituals – say
so. Because if they’re not working and not making any difference, and
you don’t believe in them, lets forget it (p. 41).
What the foregoing reveals is that, in evaluating any change management
initiative, it is essential to take full account of the expectations and values of
staff.
4.2. Leadership, communication and the management of change
As is suggested in the discussion of ‘the psychological contract’, there
was also a recognition at all levels, including amongst front-line staff, that
resourcing, financial and other factors, represented powerful constraining
influences on organisational and policy development and, by implication, on
senior managers. Even so, it is evident from both School profiles that leader-
ship and management issues were particularly prominent in staff concerns.
Linked to this were matters such as communication, vision and direction, andthe management of change.
Meade (1997, pp. 129–130), in his discussion of the challenges facing
leaders in the modern university, indicates that, despite the existence of “an
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 12/28
196 JETHRO NEWTON
extensive array of formal communication systems”, two of the major barriers
to quality advancement at his university were “lack of leadership skills and
ineffectual communication”. As Meade notes, “When individual staff are
pressed for an example some claim that ‘things happen’ which they feel they
cannot influence or prevent” (p. 130).
The thrust of the foregoing is conveyed by Respondents 24 and 26, course
team members, respectively, in business studies and social work, who were
questioned on observations they had made on senior management decision-
making processes:
Researcher:
Is that a question of communication?
Respondent 24:
They [management] have different agendas (p. 24).
Respondent 26:
It’s a lack of leadership as well I think (p. 26).
Sallis (1994, p. 237) argues that, while one of the principal functions of
leadership in a college “is to enhance the quality of learning and also to
support the staff who deliver it”, nevertheless:
Leadership has not been given the prominence it deserves in the quality
debate. There has been an overconcentration on quality systems and
insufficient attention has been paid to the management of quality, and
in particular to the nature of the leadership required to develop a quality
college. A quality culture involves strong and purposeful leadership at all
levels (p. 238).
Though the specifics may differ between institutions, such difficulties are
by no means unique to schools within NewColl. For example, one contrib-
utor to the ‘Managing for quality’ case studies (HEQC 1995a, p. 80) lists
the following elements as contributing to the leadership problems which
he inherited, and which he describes in terms of “recovering direction and
morale in a changing climate”:− resistance to change (exacerbated by poor management)
− poor leadership
− feelings of alienation amongst staff.
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 13/28
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 14/28
198 JETHRO NEWTON
reduced, the staff were receiving no leadership and poor management
. . . There was no unifying vision in the School, nor any means of the
University’s values being translated and communicated to staff (p. 80).
At NewColl, as elsewhere in UK higher education, a sharply reducing unit of
resource, higher student-staff ratios, and attempts to secure a shift in emphasis
from a ‘resource-led’ culture to a ‘problem-solving’, ‘improvement-led’
culture makes considerable demands on staff. Staff at NewColl report an
element of confusion and resignation in the face of such demands. In the
following passage two course team members express this well:
Respondent 24:
And there are conflicting messages. I mean it’s what’s flavour of the
month (p. 24).
Respondent 25:
Research. No research. Lots of classes. Not so many classes. Income
generation. Oh, forget that . . . get in the class and teach (p. 25).
Respondent 24:
You know, you can have three different changes in a year can’t you.
I mean, there is no realisation of what its like. No, they do know but
they don’t care because it’s only the figures that they’re interested in
the FTEs or are we going to get through. There’s no – I can’t see any
real care about what it’s like to be a student or a teacher (p. 24).
These respondents would sympathise with Yorke’s (1993, p. 6) warning, in
his discussion of attempts to implement total quality management in some
higher education institutions, that such change initiatives may lead to staff
“taking a somewhat sceptical and cynical view of the advocated virtues of
what might turn out to be no more than a passing fad (the ‘flavour of the
month’)”.
Drawing on such material, two observations are offered here. The first
draws once again on the ‘Managing for quality’ case study (HEQC 1995a).
The contributor notes that, at his own university, just as had been the case at
NewColl, there was a commitment to “a management style which is basedon consultation and development, rather than on the exercise of power”
(p. 81). However, he also reflected on the difficulties involved: “I am not fully
confident that the University senior management are aware of all of [the]
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 15/28
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 199
implications of the management approach which we are taking” (p. 81). In
the second point I would concur with Meade (1997) who argues that leader-
ship is important at all levels within an institution. He cites Leigh’s (1988,
p. 18) view that “leadership is not the exclusive preserve of the most senior
manager”, since in the modern organisation the autonomy of the individual
must be a central focal point of management thinking. One of the implications
of this is that, while academic staff are entitled to expect effective leadership,
they too have a professional responsibility to use their relative autonomy or
any responsibility devolved to them, to best effect. It is to such matters that
attention turns later in the paper.
4.3. Collegialism and professional accountability
The profile of School A depicts a somewhat conservative style of collegi-
alism. Amongst the staff group some were in direct conflict with senior
management regarding work practices, and many were apparently less than
willing to accept the kinds of internal accountabilities associated with
NewColl’s newly introduced quality assurance arrangements. It is suggested
here that the consequences of this disaffection were increasingly exposed
both by external and internal quality reports. Similarly, many of the more
established staff of School B also displayed an element of conservatism
and independence, particularly in quality assurance matters, and also looked
to preferred and established ways of doing things. There was a strong
inward-looking focus on ‘the old system’, with new quality frameworks
being associated in some quarters with de-professionalisation and a threat
to autonomy.
Some of this can be illustrated by reference to comments volunteeredby some respondents who entered additional comments onto returned ques-
tionnaires. Respondent 60, a senior lecturer in business studies betrays a
preference for the previous informality in quality assurance arrangements
when observing that: “The old informal systems involved meetings, student
feedback etc, but wasted less time. Just because there were no typed minutes,
it does not mean it did not happen” (p. 60). In a similarly reflective mode
Respondent 45, a principal lecturer in accountancy, claimed that “teamwork
was very good in [School B] before present practices were introduced”
(p. 45).
Marris (1975, p. 156) has used the experience of bereavement to under-
stand such reactions to innovation and change in organisations. He notes
that:
people cannot reconcile themselves to the loss of familiar attachments
in terms of some impersonal utilitarian calculation of the common good.
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 16/28
200 JETHRO NEWTON
They have to find their own meaning in these changes before they can live
with them. Hence the reformers must listen as well as explain . . . If they
impatiently cut this process short, their reforms are likely to be abortive.
Becher (1992) draws on Bailey’s (1973) study of the effects of change
in peasant studies to illustrate the position which the notions of academic
autonomy and professional discretion hold in academic life. Bailey (1973,
p. 8) observes that “the more ramifying the expected consequences of
introducing an item into a system, the more difficult is likely to be its
acceptance”.
The views of Respondents 60 and 45 were not shared by all in School
B however. Respondent 18, the School B quality coordinator, and therefore
more open and committed to new quality assurance arrangements, took a
rather longer term perspective on matters and also viewed past practice in
a different light from some of her colleagues:
I think [the quality system] has gone some way to finding out the people
who only ever paid lip-service to team-working and, therefore, in the short
term has somewhat fragmented course teams. However, we are almost at
the stage where quality requirements are accepted as a necessary part of
the system so we ought to emerge with a different type of team eventually
– one that is more coherent (p. 18).
4.4. Reciprocal accountability and mutual trust
Quality systems incorporate a strong emphasis on the need for front-line
workers to fulfil their responsibilities. As Harvey (1995a, p. 29) notes, imple-
mentation of a quality system carries with it implied criticism of the quality
of academics’ work and a lack of trust. Indeed, the HEQC case studies
‘Managing for quality’ (HEQC 1995a) reveal that a range of negative rein-
forcement tactics may be used in higher education institutions to secure
change. These include “threats” such as penalties arising from teaching
quality assessment or professional accreditation, “increased central monit-
oring, increased pressure to conform, and appealing to rules and regulations”
(HEQC 1995a, p. 158). Moreover “the range of approaches used is likely
to vary depending on the individuals involved, the scale of change and the
timescale for implementation” (p. 158).
In view of these observations the comments of Respondent 41 are of
particular interest. He referred to the “very important principle of reciprocalaccountability” and the importance for him, noted earlier, of conveying “a
sense of mutual responsibility for the quality of provision for the students”
(p. 41), with staff at all levels, from course team to senior management
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 17/28
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 201
team, needing to conduct genuine analyses of problems in fulfilling academic
objectives. For this respondent, echoing the earlier discussion of ‘the psycho-
logical contract’, the level of trust and support is an important indicator of
whether the executive “has a primary concern for the quality of working life”.
Crucial tests of this are:
How much pulling together and mutual support is there? . . . Are the
Executive concerned with building people up, creating an environment
which is supportive and enabling or are they preoccupied with calling
people to account for their failures in performance and therefore the extent
to which they’re letting down the Chief Executive and his team or the
organisation? I mean it’s a recognition of reciprocal responsibility and
accountability (p. 41).
These are increasingly familiar concerns in commentaries on the impact of
‘hard’ managerialist styles of behaviour in higher education. For example,
Ramsden (1998, p. 75), cites Baldwin (1996) who has written of “the Rambo
style of management . . . accompanied by aggressive language – talk of
kicking heads, ‘fingering’ people, colourful threats and curses” ’. Elsewhere
Ramsden (1998) describes the “presenting symptoms as including beligerent
and arbitrary management tactics, complete with admonishing statements
about academics’ ostrich-like unwillingness to accept ‘reality’ ” (p. 22). The
following extract from an interview involving three course team members,
from social work (Respondent 26), business and management (Respondent
24), and computing (Respondent 25), is quoted at length to provide a flavour
of how NewColl’s Vice Principal (Planning and Resources) was perceived in
some quarters:
Respondent 26:
You get open hostility, as well, from senior managers to academic
staff (p. 26).
Respondent 24:
We all know about it. I mean it’s intended that we know isn’t it?
(p. 24).
Respondent 26:
You know the sort of messages that are coming down (p. 26).
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 18/28
202 JETHRO NEWTON
Researcher:
Are you thinking of somebody in particular?
Respondent 26:
Yes, it’s [name of Vice Principal (Planning and Resources)] – there’s
no secret about it (p. 26).
Respondent 26:
And you can stand that for so long but the demoralising effect over
a period of time is very real and I wonder, apart from anything else,
well what is the motivation behind this? What are you trying to do?
So then, when you think about quality assurance, and working hard
in the classroom – well what’s the point, if you don’t feel there’s
any support. And there’s also anecdotal stuff, you know, needless
things have been said and when things should have been said to
support staff, they haven’t been. It doesn’t cost a lot to say, [name
of researcher] you’re doing a good job. I don’t remember anyone ever
saying anything to any of us, not to me anyway, you know, “that was
good” (p. 26).
While the circumstances described are very real, it would be quite inaccurate
to imply that these references to extreme behaviour represent a common or
characteristic feature of the organisation’s culture, or the management styleof all its senior managers. Indeed, as Trowler (1998, p. 28) implies, in under-
standing organisations we need to take account of different levels, contexts,
people and so on. Nevertheless, it is apposite to heed de Vries’s (1997, p. 53)
observation that, from the point of view of the ‘rational quality management
model’, there is an implication that “the managers do not trust the academic’s
in their institutions to deliver quality products”.
These examples are not cited from a naive or unrealistic understanding
of organisational complexity; it is more a matter of heeding Ramsden’s
(1998) observations that “academic culture presents many opportunities for
misunderstanding and conflict between leaders and academics” (p. 110) and
that:
Just as good teachers actively listen to their students, so good academic
leaders listen to what their colleagues say about their experiences of the
academic environment and academic leadership (p. 80).
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 19/28
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 203
Indeed, as Meade (1997, p. 3) observes, much depends on effective leader-
ship:
Given that some of the major barriers to the creation of a learning organ-
isation are scepticism, suspicion, a lack of trust, and a fear of change,leaders have a distinctive responsibility for ensuring that . . . members of
the university community experience a climate that promotes a sense of
trust, and hence a willingness to engage in change for improvement.
The views cited in relation to each of the explanatory concepts highlight
the contentious nature of issues surrounding professionalism, professional
responsibility, and accountability. They also point towards three key areas
of debate in the literature on professionals in bureaucratic organisations
generally (Harries-Jenkins 1970; Johnson 1970, 1990; Foster 1983) and,
more specifically, professionalism and professional development in higher
education (Harvey and Knight 1996; Ramsden 1998). Each of these areas,
outlined further in the next section of the paper, has a direct bearing on the
attempt generally in this paper to understand the role of academic staff in
policy implementation in a higher education institution, and specifically to
explaining why the results of two Schools are skewed in a negative direction.
They are:
(i) the debate around professional discretion and autonomy, which
developed momentum in the sociology of social policy in the 1970s
and 1980s (Lipsky 1976; Prottas 1978; Adler and Asquith 1981).
(ii) the more recent work on ‘new collegialism’ (Harvey 1995a; Harvey
and Knight 1996)
(iii) the debate surrounding the notion of ‘self-regulation’ in higher educa-
tion (Jackson 1997, 1998).
5. Distortion of official policy goals: The ‘problem’ of discretion and
professional autonomy
5.1. ‘Cloisterism’, ‘new collegialism’ and professional autonomy
Harvey (1994, 1995a,b) has taken a very clear line on the importance
of ensuring that academics, as professionals, use their relative autonomy
responsibly and that, in the interests of continuous quality improvement,
they do so on the basis of team-work with colleagues. In his comparisonof ‘cloisterism’ and ‘new collegialism’ Harvey (1995a, p. 35) depicts the
former in terms such as ‘traditional’, ‘isolationist’, ‘individual’, ‘defensive’
and ‘wary of change’. In contrast, the latter is seen as ‘open’ and ‘responsive’.
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 20/28
204 JETHRO NEWTON
The ‘new collegialist’ academic ‘welcomes change’ and is open to ‘explicit
quality criteria’. As Harvey (1995a, p. 35) notes:
New collegialism and cloisterism represent ends of a spectrum of posi-
tions and approaches to academia. Both tendencies can be found in mosthigher education institutions and in most discipline areas.
The applicability of various elements of Harvey’s dichotomy to this NewColl
study can be readily illustrated. The somewhat ‘cloisterist’ preference for
a non-intrusive approach to quality to which School A had become accus-
tomed has been noted, as has the discomfort with a team-oriented approach
to quality assessment and the associated transparency and explicitness of
quality criteria. In sum, many staff in this School were resistant to new forms
of accountability whether internally or externally derived. School B also
displayed conservative tendencies in some quarters, with some staff clinging
to established ways of approaching quality matters. Both Schools, it will be
recalled, had well-established validation links with traditional and paternalistuniversities.
Harvey himself cited NewColl as an example of a higher education insti-
tution which was developing a “responsive collegiate approach” (Harvey
1995a, p. 36). NewColl’s quality framework was viewed as being based
firmly on the principles of ‘new collegialism’, including teamwork. However,
it is important to recognise in the present discussion of two of NewColl’s
Schools that Harvey also acknowledges that the development of the ‘new
collegialism’ may be equated by academics, at each end of the spectrum,
with accountability, managerialism and the growth of external monitoring.
As Harvey (1995a, p. 35) expresses it: “This has led to widespread cynicism,
resentment and lack of trust amongst some academics. One reaction has beenfurther retrenchment and reification of cloisterism”.
Though NewColl was amongst those institutions which reacted institu-
tionally to external change by opting “to grasp the initiative and reassess tradi-
tional collegiate allegiances and prerogatives”, recognising that “academic
autonomy in the new-collegiate approach comes through ownership of the
quality-improvement process and the development of an explicit profes-
sionalism” (Harvey 1995a, p. 35), nevertheless, as the paper reveals, the
challenge of realising this objective was a considerable one, not least given
the problematical nature of ‘discretion’ and ‘professionalism’ at the academic
front-line.
5.2. The concept of self-regulation
The ‘professionalism’ debate is also at the centre of Jackson’s (1997, 1998)
work on self-regulation in UK higher education. The “core characteristics
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 21/28
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 205
of the self-regulating university” which Jackson (1998, p. 8) depicts, acted
as a benchmark for NewColl’s own attempt to demonstrate that it is “a
self-critical, cohesive academic community” (HEQC 1995b). Jackson (1997)
portrays the ‘professionalism’ of the individual academic as a key variable:
The health and integrity of the regulatory regime is, to a large measure,
dependent on [a] sense of professional responsibility and obligation at the
level of the individual (p. 133).
Middlehurst (1997, p. 190), in her discussion of ‘new collegialism’, also
argues for a “strengthened professionalism”. However, echoing elements of
the findings reported in this paper, not least in relation to the two Schools
presently being discussed, Middlehurst notes that: “Unfortunately, viewing
quality assurance and accountability as a chore and an imposition, as many
academics do, rather than a feature of good practice and a manifestation of
professional pride, has had detrimental effects on the public image of thewhole community and its perceived professionalism” (p. 190).
5.3. The discretion debate
The discretion debate centres on the importance of discretionary behaviour
and the need for professionals and bureaucrats, especially in personal service
professions, to make judgements and to exercise discretion. But there are
contradictory arguments. Firstly, for front-line professionals there may be
encroachment on their activities, or insufficient discretion, due to too much
bureaucratic constraint. Here, ‘the problem’ may centre on a perceived inflex-
ibility of ‘the rules’. Alternatively, there may be a problem of goal distortion
or goal conflict. Here, discretion may be exercised inappropriately or idiosyn-
cratically from the point of view of management, with a consequent distortion
of official policy goals or intentions. The latter is of particular interest at this
juncture since, arguably, it connects well with key elements of the profiles of
each of the two Schools with which this assessment is concerned.
The ‘discretion debate’ connects with the notion of “the street-level
bureaucrat” (Lipsky 1976, 1980; Prottas 1978). For Prottas (1978), street-
level bureaucrats are, despite controls on them, the real makers of policy and
management loses control to them. The organisation can’t enforce control
because it can’t specify the rules and responsibilities precisely enough.
Their discretion is a problem for both client and agency. As Lipsky (1980,
p. 13) notes: “The policy-making roles of street-level bureaucrats are builton . . . relatively high degrees of discretion and relative autonomy from
organisational authority”. What should be borne in mind here is that, by
stressing ‘ownership’ and ‘self-assessment’, quality assurance systems such
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 22/28
206 JETHRO NEWTON
as NewColl’s may actually run the risk of exacerbating the problem of
discretion for management.
As Lipsky (1980, p. 17) argues, street-level bureaucrats “can withhold
co-operation and strategies include negative attitudes with implications for
work (alienation, apathy)”. The kinds of “negative attitudes” referred to by
Lipsky, and described in the profiles of both School A and School B, led some
staff, especially front-line staff in the former, to distance themselves from the
requirements and responsibilities of NewColl’s quality assurance system.
While some commentators point towards the widespread challenge to the
authority and autonomy of academics, or the ‘decline of donnish dominion’
as Halsey (1992) terms it, as Middlehurst and Gordon (1995, p. 280) observe:
Universities and colleges have been described as organisations of profes-
sionals where the professionals (notably the academics) exercise high
degrees of autonomy. They have considerable discretion over what and
how they teach and over what and how they research.
Moreover, as Middlehurst and Gordon (1995) remind us, universities are
often characterised as ‘loosely-coupled systems’ (Weick 1976). Without
the appropriate ‘mind-set’, such organisational arrangements “can mitigate
against the introduction of quality management models” (Middlehurst and
Gordon 1995, p. 281). In many universities and colleges, they suggest,
amongst the “ingredients that are either missing or weakly developed [is]
an emphasis on rigorous self-assessment (as a matter of routine practice)”
(p. 281).
This scenario fits well with the elements of the profile of School A which
revealed resistance, amongst many staff, to the introduction of a new quality
system premised on self-assessment and to the disciplines that went with it.
6. Conclusions and implications
By focusing on some of the factors influencing academics’ views of higher
education policy and change, the paper reveals some of the barriers to the
effective management of quality. The case study findings show how issues
around leadership and management can come to play a prominent part in
staff concerns regarding institutional change generally, and the implemen-
tation of quality policy specifically. There are messages and lessons in the
paper for both ‘front-line’ academics and for those with responsibilities for
institutional management and leadership. Academics are entitled to expectappropriate and effective leadership and management but, equally, the paper
indicates that, in accordance with the principles of ‘new collegialism’, they
too have a professional responsibility to use their relative autonomy to best
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 23/28
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 207
effect. Institutional managers, by the same token, need to take full account
of the role that discretionary behaviour plays in the policy implementation
process.
While acknowledging that increased accountability, greater transparency,
and intrusion have presented significant challenges for staff at all levels,
and may produce mistrust of management and negative responses to change
initiatives, the paper raises questions around professionalism, professional
autonomy, and accountability, and points to the problematic nature of discre-
tion and professionalism amongst ‘front-line academics. By connecting with
the ‘discretion debate’, and by indicating the important position held by
academic autonomy and professional discretion in academic life, it is possible
to show how the exercise of discretion by front-line academics may serve
to distort official, institutional policy goals and intentions. Moreover, it is
argued, quality assurance systems in higher education, by laying emphasis
on ‘ownership’ and ‘professional responsibility’, may actually run the risk of
exposing or even exacerbating the ‘problem’ of discretion from the point of view of institutional managers and leaders.
The paper also serves to remind quality managers in higher education and
advocates of transformative concepts of quality (Harvey and Knight), who
emphasise the desirability of ‘quality enhancement’ and ‘continuous quality
improvement’, that it is advisable to take full account of the constraints and
circumstances of situation and context which influence both policy imple-
mentation and the activities of key actors or ‘system-users’ in changing or
re-shaping quality policy. By focusing on a particular work environment
the research reported on here has revealed much needed insights into issues
around the implementation of quality policy, and how key actors receive and
respond to policy and change in higher education organisations.Given that there is a shortage of research into the development and opera-
tion of policy within specific organisational settings in higher education, then
insights drawn from research into day-to-day life in universities which might
inform the practice and performance of quality managers are much needed. A
number of lessons for academic administrators and academic managers with
responsibilities for quality management can be drawn from this paper.
Firstly, there is a difference between the planned outcomes of policy and
those which emerge through implementation. This means that ‘quality policy’
is changed in the implementation process and that any quality management
system or change initiative will always be impacted upon by situatedness.
Arguably, the ‘real makers of policy’ are policy users. In other words, my
findings provide evidence that staff, especially front-line academics, do notmutely accept change or the particular demands of quality assurance policy or
systems. Policy implementation is complex and uneven. Through their own
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 24/28
208 JETHRO NEWTON
interpretative work actors attach meaning to the various aspects of the quality
system as they interact with it. They are not passive recipients of management
objectives. Academic staff, in common with all actors involved, are ‘makers’
and ‘shapers’ of policy. They respond, adapt to or even resist and, while this
may be patterned, it is not uniform. Accordingly, there is a need for quality
managers and academic administrators to take account of what academics
think and do, and what meanings they attach to the different facets of policy
and how they work, change or even ‘work around’ policy (Trowler 1998).
Secondly, quality is an essentially contested issue and there are competing
voices and discourses within the ‘academic community’. This concerns an
underlying dilemma confronting quality managers. Quality is like educa-
tion generally. It is contested territory; there are competing interests, voices
and discourses. So long as quality managers preach forms of managerialism
and accountability they become hostages to fortune and remain ensnared
in the tension between the forces of accountability and calls for quality
improvement and enhancement.Thirdly, my experience as a researcher and as a quality manager indic-
ates that quality becomes preoccupied with accountability. A well developed
quality assurance system can provide a university or college with an anchor
point and a stabilising influence in an often turbulent environment. However,
those with institutional responsibilities for quality management and quality
development – whether in a central or faculty role – should note that the
requirements and expectations of the state and external quality monitoring
and accreditation bodies mean that, in design and operational terms, ‘quality’
is likely to become linked with or even overtaken by the exigencies of
accountability. This, in turn, will influence how leaders and managers are
perceived by ‘front-line’ staff.Fourthly, there is no blueprint for a quality system for universities and
colleges: what is achievable with ‘quality’ in a higher education organisation
should not be viewed by managers and administrators from the standpoint of
a ‘blank sheet’. This applies equally at either institutional level or national
level. While, the desirable components of a quality system may not be
difficult to ascertain, or while, as noted earlier, the elements of strong depart-
mental leadership are identifiable, my research indicates that the search for a
blueprint is flawed, perhaps even naive. There are a range of ways in which
circumstances surrounding the design, development and implementation of
a quality assurance system may serve to undermine or subvert an idealistic,
blueprint-driven approach to quality assurance policy and change manage-
ment. Managers do not begin with a blank sheet. As Fullan (1993, p. 1)argues: “Change is a journey, not a blueprint”. Moreover, it is prudent to
avoid uncritical notions of the quality manager or academic leader as ‘change
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 25/28
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 209
hero’, or as the sole determinant of change. There are no simple prescriptions
for managing change in complex circumstances.
Fifth, to be able to manage change effectively institutional leaders and
managers should assess the current and emerging climate of operation. This
means paying attention not only to the preoccupations of key external stake-
holders and regulatory bodies, and what they bring to bear at any one point in
time, but also to the values and expectations of staff within an institution. In
turn, this focus on ‘climate of operation’ points to a further area of considera-
tion alluded to in this paper, which again has a bearing on the management of
change in quality assurance matters and from which a lesson can be drawn.
It is advisable for quality managers to pay attention to the alignment between
‘the realities of context’ (the immediate institutional ‘climate of operation’)
on the one hand, and the ‘philosophy’ or ‘quality culture’ underpinning a
quality system, and the ‘technology’ or the ‘quality system’ itself, on the
other hand. The general application of this in quality management is that, by
giving consideration to alignment with prevailing circumstances it is possibleto ascertain what outcomes are most likely from what combination of external
and internal constraining forces and opportunities, and also what approach
to quality management and leadership might be most appropriate. Here, the
pace of change is an important consideration, as is how this is negotiated
and managed. Quality managers, indeed managers generally, need to be
equipped to provide leadership and should take time to explain change on
an incremental basis. These matters relating to alignment with context have
an important bearing on both the design and the implementation of a quality
assurance system.
Finally, in attempting to avoid the problems and limitations of a ‘top-
down’ managerialist approach, it is evident from this paper that it is bothpossible and desirable to tap into the ‘inner workings’ and ‘inner life’ of
higher education institutions and to penetrate the discourses and activities of
academics at all levels, and to learn something of how these combine to shape
their role in the policy arena. Such a perspective is indispensable to those
managers and administrators who are committed to paying close attention
to the preoccupations and predispositions of a college’s staff when change
initiatives are being planned. This then affords a more rounded understanding
not only of how innovations or changes are adapted to fit the ‘local setting’,
but also how system users adapt to the innovation.
References
Adair, J. (1983). Effective Leadership. London: Pan.
Adler, M. and Asquith, S. (1981). Discretion and Welfare. London: Heinemann Educational.
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 26/28
210 JETHRO NEWTON
Bailey, F. (1973). Debate and Compromise. Oxford: Blackwell.
Baldwin, G. (1996). ‘First among peers: an essay on academic leadership’, HERDSA News
18: 6–9.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of
Disciplines. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.Becher, T. (1992). ‘Making audit acceptable: a collegial approach to quality assurance’,
Higher Education Quarterly 46(1), 47–66.
Burnes, B. (1996). Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics,
second edn. London: Pitman Publishing.
Danielli, A. and Thomas, A.B. (1998). ‘Occupational identity and organisational change
among university management teachers’. Paper presented to the international conference
Higher education close up, University of Central Lancashire, 6–8 July 1998.
de Vries, P. (1997). ‘Self-assessment within the quality assessment process: a critical
perspective’, in Radford, J. et al. (eds.), Quantity and Quality in Higher Education. Higher
Education Policy Series 40, London: Jessica Kingsley.
Foster, P. (1983). Access to Welfare. London: Macmillan.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces. London: Falmer.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.
Halsey, A.H. (1992). The Decline of Donnish Dominion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Handy, C. (1984). ‘Education for management outside business’, in Goodlad, S. (ed.),
Educating for the Professions. Guildford: SRHE/NFER.
Handy, C. (1993). Understanding Organisations, fourth edn. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Harries-Jenkins, G. (1970). ‘Professionals in organisations’, in Jackson, J. (ed.), Professions.
London: Macmillan.
Harvey, L. (1994). ‘Continuous quality improvement: a system-wide view of quality in higher
education’, in Knight, P. (ed.), University-wide Change, Staff and Curriculum Develop-
ment , SEDA Paper 83. Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association.
Harvey, L. (1995a). Quality Assurance Systems, TQM and the New Collegialism. Birmingham:
QHE Project.
Harvey, L. (1995b). ‘Beyond TQM’, Quality in Higher Education 1(2), 123–191.
Harvey, L. and Knight, P. (1996). Transforming Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE/OU
Press.HEQC (1995a). Managing for Quality: Stories and Strategies – A Case Study Resource for
Academic Leaders and Managers. London: Higher Education Quality Council.
HEQC (1995b). Criteria for Degree Awarding Powers. London: Higher Education Quality
Council.
Jackson, N. (1997). ‘Academic regulation in UK higher education: the concept of collaborative
regulation’, Quality Assurance in Education 5(3), 120–135.
Jackson, N. (1998). ‘Academic regulation in UK higher education: part III – the idea of
“partnership in trust” ’, Quality Assurance in Education 6(1), 5–18.
Johnson, T. (1972). Professions and Power . London: Macmillan.
Johnson, T. (1990). ‘Thatcher’s professions: the state and the professions in Britain’. Paper
delivered at the World Congress of Sociology, Madrid.
Leigh, A. (1988). Effective Change: Twenty Ways to Make it Happen. London: Institute of
Personnel Management.
Lipsky, M. (1976). ‘Toward a theory of street-level bureaucracy’, in Hawley, W.D. and Lipsky,M. (eds.), Theoretical Perspectives on Urban Policy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services.
Beverley Hills: Sage.
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 27/28
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 211
Macfarlane, B. (1997a). ‘In search of an identity: lecturer perceptions of the business studies
first degree’, Journal of Vocational Education and Training 49, 5–20.
Macfarlane, B. (1997b). ‘The business study first degree: institutional trends and the pedagogic
context’, Teaching in Higher Education 2, 45–57.
Marris, P. (1975). Loss and Change. London: Routledge.Martin, E. (1999). Changing Academic Work: Developing the Learning University. Buck-
ingham: Open University Press.
McNay, I. (1995). ‘From collegial academy to corporate enterprise: The changing cultures of
universities’, in Schuller, T. (ed.), The Changing University. Buckingham: SRHE/Open
University.
Meade, P.H. (1997). Challenges Facing Universities: Quality Leadership and the Management
of Change. Dunedin: University of Otago.
Middlehurst, R. (1991). The Changing Roles of University Leaders and Managers: Implic-
ations for Preparation and Development . Sheffield: Universities’ Staff Development
Unit.
Middlehurst, R. (1993). Leading Academics. Buckingham: SRHE/OU Press.
Middlehurst, R. (1997). ‘Enhancing quality’, in Coffield, F. and Williamson, B. (eds.),
Repositioning Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE/OU Press.
Middlehurst, R. and Elton, L. (1992). ‘Leadership and management in higher education’,
Studies in Higher Education 17(3), 251–264.
Middlehurst, R. and Gordon, G. (1995). ‘Leadership, quality and institutional effectiveness’,
Higher Education Quarterly 49(3), 267–285.
Newton, J. (1999a). ‘Implementing quality assurance policy in a higher education college:
exploring the tension between the views of ‘managers’ and ‘managed’ ’. Presented at the
21st annual EAIR Forum, ‘ New realities – renewed institutions’, Lund University, Sweden,
22–25 August, 1999.
Newton, J. (1999b). ‘An evaluation of the impact of external quality monitoring on a higher
education college (1993–98)’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 24(2),
215–235.
Partington, P. and Brodie, D. (1992). ‘HE Departmental leadership/management: an explora-
tion of roles and responsibilities’, USDU Occasional Paper No. 3. Sheffield: Universities
Staff Development Unit.Prottas, N. (1978). ‘The power of the street level bureaucrat’, Urban Affairs Quarterly 13(3),
285–312.
Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to Lead in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Sallis, E. (1994). ‘From systems to leadership: the development of the quality movement
in higher education’, in Doherty, G. (ed.), Developing Quality Systems in Education.
London: Routledge.
Shore, C. and Roberts, S. (1995). ‘Higher education and the panopticon paradigm: Quality
assessment as ‘disciplinary technology’ ’, Higher Education Review 27(3), 8–17.
Smyth, J. (ed.) (1995). Academic Work: The Changing Labour Process in Higher Education.
Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
Trow, M. (1994). ‘Managerialism and the academic profession: Quality and control’, Higher
Education Report No. 2. London: Quality Support Centre.
Trowler, P. (1998). Academics Responding to Change: New Higher Education Frameworks
and Academic Cultures. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education/OpenUniversity Press.
Weick, K.E. (1976). ‘Educational organisations as loosely-coupled systems’, Administrative
Science Quarterly 21(1), 1–19.
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barriers-to-effective-quality-management-and-leadership 28/28
212 JETHRO NEWTON
Weil, S. (1994). ‘Management and change in colleges and universities: the need for new
understandings’, in Weil, S. (ed.), Implementing Change from the Top in Universities and
Colleges: 10 Personal Accounts. London: Kogan Page.
Wilson, D.C. (1992). A strategy of Change: Concepts and Controversies in the Management
of Change. London: Routledge.Yorke, M. (1993). ‘Total quality higher education?’. Presented at the 15th EAIR Forum,
University of Turku, Finland, 15–18.