1 navigating the archipelagos of greek universities: leadership, quality management, and reforms...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Navigating the archipelagos of Greek Universities: leadership,
quality management, and reforms
Antigoni Papadimitriou
CHEPS/University of Twente & Aristotle University, Greece
Don F. Westerheijden
CHEPS/University of Twente, The Netherlands
31st Annual EAIR Forum23 to 26 August 2009
2
CONTENTS
Objectives of the Study Surveying Leaders via MBNQA Criteria Findings:
Isomorphic pressures, Leadership, QM Analyzing Gap Conclusions
3
Objective of the study
How did institutional leaders (rectors and vice-rectors) perceive quality management before the adoption of new laws (2005 and 2007)?
What pressures may explain their perceptions?
4
Frame Law and the operation of the GR public universities
Every department and every unit in GRPU operates in accordance with the frame law 1268/82 till 2006. The latest 6th Edition, (S. Benos, 2003) consisted of 445 pages, 9.643 paragraphs, 120.401 words and 3.437.216 characters.
5
The structure of leadership and decision making in Greek universities
AUTHORITY ACADEMIC LEVEL
INSTITUTION SCHOOL DEPARTMENT DIVISION
GovernanceLeadership
Rector +Vice Rectors
Dean Head(+Deputy Head)
Director
Decision-Making
superior/major
Senate GeneralAssembly
GeneralAssembly
Assembly
Decision-Making
Rector's Board Dean'sBoard
GoverningCouncil
Executive Rectorate Council
Dean'sBoard
GoverningCouncil
6
Theoretical framework
This study relies upon a conceptual framework created from a thorough review and synthesis of the literature:
in systems theory neo-institutional theory universities’ characteristics : leadership quality management
7
Surveying Leaders via MBNQA Criteria
The Seven MB Categories
1. Leadership
2. Strategic Planning
3. Student, Stakeholder, and Market Focus
4. Measurement Analysis and Knowledge Management
5. Faculty and Staff Focus
6. Process Management
7. Organizational Performance Results Source: MBNQA 2005, NIST
8
Findings
0123456789
10
Importance and Implementation Rates (averages of 9 universities)
9
Findings : Isomorphism
Normative U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9
Combined mean score
8.7 7.7 9.5 7.1 5.4 10 8.9 9.9 9.8
Pressure scale High High High High Med. High High High High
Mimetic U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9
Combined mean score
9.0 9.5 9.5 1.0 7.5 10 8 10 9
Pressure scale High High High Low High High High High High
10
Findings : University characteristic: Leadership
Leadership U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9
Leadership Mean score
7.6 2.2 7.6 7.8 5.7 5.9 6.0 2.7 6.8
Leadership challenge
D A D D C C C B C
A=“early stage of transition”
B= “beginning of systematic approach”
C= “systematic fact-based process in some part of the organization”
D= “is well integrated”
11
Findings: QM
QM U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9
Combined QA score
6.3 2.1 7.7 5.6 4.1 4.4 7.2 4.5 6.8
MB total overview
6.5 2.0 7.7 6.0 4.5 4.4 7.1 4.5 6.8
Developmental stage
Dev Lac Adv Dev Emb Emb Dev Emb Dev
12
Analyzing Gap
Small Large Total
AgeOld 5 3 8
New 1 0 1
SizeSmall 3 1 4
Medium 2 2 4
Large 1 0 1
LocationUrban 3 2 5
Periphery 3 1 4
13
Type of StudiesMonothematic 3 2 5
Multidisciplinary 3 1 4
Leadership Challenge
A 0 1 1
B 0 1 1
C 3 1 4
D 3 0 3
QM stage
Lacking 0 1 1
Embryonic 1 2 3
Developed 4 0 4
Advanced 1 0 1
14
Conclusions
Overall findings regarding isomorphism indicated that normative and mimetic pressures were perceived as high in almost all nine cases, and there was almost no inter-university variation between these pressures.
Coercive pressure was not detected with this survey tool.
The MB survey showed different views of QM, bringing the complexity of these practices into focus.
15
Conclusions -2-
For example, all nine universities reported that they did not have any QA system Evidence on the implementation stage of actual
QM instruments revealed that four out of nine universities were in a “developing” stage according to the MB criteria.
16
Conclusions -3-
How leaders prioritized their needs: implementation of QM was most advanced in
“Process Management” implementation of “Strategic Planning” and
“Measurement Analysis and Knowledge Management” were least developed
“gaps” between the desired levels (a sign of pressure) and actual implementation: Smallest in “Process Management” Largest in “Strategic Planning”
17
Conclusions -4-
not all leaders were fully committed or knowledgeable about QM initiatives.
the leadership challenge was related to QM. Metaphorically speaking, leadership commitment
reflects only the “tip of the iceberg” regarding adoption of QM in Greek universities.
18
Conclusions -Now-
QA law (3549/2007) obliges universities to adopt QA systems develop a four year strategic plan fill the position of HEI Secretary in other words: coercive pressure
Coercive pressure may create normative pressure in the future: “professionally trained business managers” Conclusion: after many ‘paper changes’, chances
for growth of QA are increasing
19
Thank you!
Questions – Comments?
20