Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership

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



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



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).



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:




− 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



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.




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



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”,




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



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




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



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.





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]




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.



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




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).



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).




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’.



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




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



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




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



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




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.



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.




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.



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.

Documents

Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership