perceptions of educators regarding the implementation of
TRANSCRIPT
Perceptions of educators regarding the implementation of the Integrated Quality
Management System of the Mpumalanga Department of Education
by
JULENE VAN RENSBURG
In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
MAGISTER COMMERCII
in
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
in the
FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT
At
UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG
Supervisor: Prof BR Grobler
JOHANNESBURG MAY 2008
ABSTRACT
Recent studies into the strategic management field indicate that there is a lack of
knowledge on strategy implementation. The lack of comprehensive implementation
frameworks is particularly raised by a number of scholars. Strategy implementation is
one aspect of strategic management. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the
implementation of the Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS) of the
Mpumalanga Department of Education. The research problem in this report refers to
the achievement of the quality objectives of the IQMS. This report aims to explore
whether the IQMS objectives are met. It also investigates the effective
implementation of the IQMS. This study aims to identify gaps, if any, in the
implementation process of the IQMS.
Definitions of strategic management and the strategic management process are
explored in this report. Strategy implementation levers as described by the McKinsey
7-S Framework are discussed. The role of Total Quality Management and the
Balanced Scorecard in successful strategy implementation is shortly mentioned.
This study reflects on the perceptions of a sample of the “implementers” of the IQMS.
Data is collected by means of a questionnaire that is structured around the
implementation levers. It highlights positive/negative aspects/perceptions of the
system and the current implementation thereof. The sample consists of a mixture of
principals, educators and administrative staff from the various schools in the
Nkangala district as well as officials in the provincial office.
With respect to the strategy for implementation, respondents seem uncertain. The
study indicates that there is uncertainty regarding the organisational structures and
its effectiveness in achieving the IQMS goal of support and development of
educators. There is also uncertainty regarding the systems available for strategy
implementation. It appears that there is uncertainty regarding systems and how it
manages to identify specific needs of educators regarding support and development.
Educators appear to be uncertain regarding the shared values in the organisation
and this can indicate a problem regarding effective communication of the common
values and objectives of the IQMS. A shortage of qualified officials and the large
learner-to-educator ratios in schools are identified as staff issues in this study.
Training and feedback regarding the implementation of IQMS is also a problem.
There is uncertainty amongst principals and heads of departments with respect to
skills. The respondents indicate an uncertain perception as to whether the IQMS is
able to identify specific needs regarding support and development, which is one of
the objectives of the IQMS.
Recommendations include a review of the actual IQMS and widespread participation
is encouraged. Regular communication about and training on how to implement the
actual IQMS is necessary. Regular feedback on the implementation process is
needed.
Declaration of original work
This statement must appear and be signed and dated.
I, Julene van Rensburg, declare that this dissertation is my own unaided work. Any
assistance that I have received has been duly acknowledged in the dissertation. It is
submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Commerce at the University of Johannesburg. It has not been submitted before for
any degree or examination at this or at any other University.
………………………………… ………………………….
(NAME) (DATE)
(Day, Month, Year)
INDEX
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………………………….. xi
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………….. xii
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………… xii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS……………………………………………………………… xv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction to the study……………………………………………………………. 2
1.2 Problem statement………………………………………………………………….. 3
1.3 Research objectives………………………………………………………………... 3
1.4 The purpose of the study……………………………………………………….….. 4
CHAPTER 2
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND IMPLEMENTATION
2.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………6
2.2 Mpumalanga Department of Education ………………………………………….. 6
2.2.1 Background to the Integrated Quality Management System …………….… 7
2.2.2 Strategic goals of the National Government for 2006/07 – 2008/09……..…9
2.2.3 Strategic goals of the Mpumalanga Department of Education for
2006/07 – 2008/09………………………………………………………….….. 9
2.3 Concepts within the strategic management process…………………………….10
2.3.1 Concepts …………………………………………………………………………..10
2.3.2 Systems Theory ………………………………………………………………..…17
2.4 Implementation of intended strategy ………………………………………………18
2.4.1 Challenges related to strategy implementation ……………………………….. 19
2.4.2 Strategy implementation frameworks and models …………………………..…22
2.5 Strategy Implementation levers …………………………………………………... 25
2.5.1 Strategy …………………………………………………………………………. 28
2.5.2 Structure …………………………………………………………………………. 29
2.5.3 Systems …………………………………………………………………………. 30
2.5.3.1 Communication ……………………………………………………………31
2.5.3.2 Policies ………………………………………………………………….…32
2.5.3.3 Knowledge Management ……………………………………………..…33
2.5.4 Shared values ……………………………………………………………….……33
2.5.5 Style ……………………………………………………………………………….35
2.5.6 Staff ………………………………………………………………………….…….36
2.5.7 Skills …………………………………………………………………………..…..40
2.6 Potential aids in strategy implementation ……………………………………..…..41
2.6.1 Total quality management (TQM) ………………………………………..…….41
2.6.2 Balanced Scorecard ….……………………………………………………..…..45
2.7 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………..…..51
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………...... 52
3.2 Research design………………………………………………………………...….. 52
3.3 Research population………………………………………………………………... 53
3.4 Sample……………………………………………………………………………….. 53
3.4.1 Sampling Methodology……………………………………………………...….. 53
3.4.2 Sample size………………………………………………………………………. 54
3.5 Research instruments……………………………………………………………… 54
3.6 Data collection…………………………………………………………………….… 56
3.6 Data analysis………………………………………………………………………... 57
3.6.1 Data preparation…………………………………………………………….… 57
3.6.2 Data entry……………………………………………………………………… 58
3.6.3 Measure of spread……………………………………………………………. 58
3.6.4 Statistical tests………………………………………………………………… 58
3.6.4.1 Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
measure of sampling adequacy………………………………….….…. 59
3.6.4.2 Cronbach Alpha…………………………………………………….….... 59
3.6.4.3 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test (KS)……………………………………...… 59
3.6.4.4 Kruskal-Wallis………………………………………………………..…... 60
3.6.4.5 Mann-Whitney………………………………………………………..….. 60
3.6.4.6 T-tests…………………………………………………………………….. 60
3.6.4.7 Levene’s test………………………………………………………...…... 61
3.6.5 Factor analysis…………………………………………………………….…..… 61
3.7 Validity and Reliability…………………………………………………………........ 62
3.8 Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………………….... 63
3.9 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………... 64
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 65
4.1.1 Research Hypothesis ……………………………………………………………. 66
4.2 Presentation and analysis of results…………………………………………..….. 66
4.2.1 Strategy as the actions that your organisation plans, both for the
short-and long term regarding the implementation of IQMS (F1)…………... 67
4.2.1.1 Statistical procedures for analysing the data with respect to F1.
i. Hypotheses for the position within the organisation groups (Q1.1)…….….. 69
ii. Hypotheses for the number of years in your present position
groups (Q1.2)………………………………………………………………….… 71
iii. Hypotheses for who is responsible for the implementation of the
IQMS groups (Q1.3)…………………………………………………………......72
4.2.2 Structure as the internal organisational structures and processes
regarding the implementation of IQMS (F2)……………………………........ 73
4.2.2.1 Hypotheses for the position within the organisation
groups (Q1.1)………………………………………………………..….. 74
4.2.3 Systems as the procedures by which an organisation operates
regarding the implementation of IQMS (F3)……………………………….....76
4.2.3.1 Hypotheses for the position within the organisation
groups (Q1.1)………………………………………………………….... 78
4.2.4 Shared values as the culture of an organisation regarding the
implementation of IQMS (F4)…………………………………………….…..... 80
4.2.4.1 Hypotheses for the position within the organisation
groups (Q1.1)………………………………………………………..….. 81
4.2.5 The management style of leaders regarding the implementation of
IQMS (F5)……………………………………………………………………….. 82
4.2.5.1 Hypotheses for the position within the organisation
groups (Q1.1)………………………………………………………..….. 83
4.2.6 Staff as people doing the work regarding encouragement of
performance appraisals, motivation and morale with respect
to the implementation of IQMS (F6)……………………………….………….. 85
4.2.6.1 Hypotheses for the position within the organisation
groups (Q1.1)……………………………………………………….…… 86
4.2.7 Skills as the combined knowledge, skills and abilities of staff with
respect to the implementation of IQMS (F7)……………………………….… 87
4.2.7.1 Hypotheses for the position within the organisation
groups (Q1.1)………………………………………………………….… 89
4.3 The achievement of IQMS objectives as independent variables versus
the factors for strategy implementation (F1 – F7)………………………………. 91
4.3.1 Strategy (F1) as dependant variable versus the objectives of the IQMS…. 91
4.3.1.1 Extent that IQMS has identified specific needs of educators
regarding support and development (Q1.4)………………………….. 91
4.3.2 Structure as dependant variable versus the objectives of the IQMS………. 92
4.3.2.1 Extent that IQMS has identified specific needs of educators
regarding support and development (Q1.4)…………………….……. 93
4.3.3 Systems as dependant variable versus the objectives of IQMS……….…... 93
4.3.3.1 Identified specific needs of educators regarding support
and development (Q1.4)………………………………………………... 93
4.3.3.2 IQMS as monitoring mechanism for school effectiveness (Q1.6).…. 94
4.3.4 Shared values as dependant variable versus the objectives of IQMS….…. 94
4.3.4.1 Extent that IQMS has identified specific needs of educators
regarding support and development (Q1.4)……………………….…. 95
4.3.4.2 Extent that IQMS has succeeded in evaluating teacher
performance (Q1.7)……………………………………………………… 95
4.3.5 Management style of the leaders as dependant variables versus
the objectives of the IQMS……………………………………………………… 95
4.3.6 Staff as people who encourage and motivate educators to improve
morale as dependant variable versus the objectives of IQMS……………… 96
4.3.6.1 The extent that IQMS has managed to monitor school
effectiveness (Q1.6)…………………………………………………….. 96
4.3.7 Skills and abilities of staff as dependant variable versus the objectives
of IQMS…………………………………………………………………………….. 96
4.3.7.1 Extent that IQMS has identified specific needs of educators
regarding support and development (Q1.4)………………………….. 97
4.3.7.2 Extent that IQMS has managed to monitor school
effectiveness (Q1.6)…………………………………………………….. 97
4.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 98
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 99
5.2 Issues identified……………………………………………………………………… 99
5.2.1 Strategy……………………………………………………………………….…… 99
5.2.2 Structure ………………………………………………………………………….. 99
5.2.3 Systems ……………………………………………………………………….…. 100
5.2.4 Shared values……………………………………………………………….…….101
5.2.5 Style………………………………………………………………………….…….101
5.2.6 Staff……………………………………………………………………………….. 102
5.2.7 Skills………………………………………………………………………………. 102
5.3 Findings linked to literature cited in literature review……………………………. 103
5.3.1 Strategy………………………………………………………………………...….104
5.3.2 Structure……………………………………………………………………..…… 107
5.3.3 Systems………………………………………………………………………..…. 107
5.3.4 Shared values……………………………………………………………………. 108
5.3.5 Style……………………………………………………………………………….. 109
5.3.6 Staff……………………………………………………………………………….. 109
5.3.7 Skills………………………………………………………………………………. 110
5.4 Limitations of the study………………………………………………………………110
5.5 Conclusion………...…………………………………………………………………. 111
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………112
6.2 Summary of research objectives and major findings……………………………. 112
6.2.1 Explore whether the IQMS objectives are met……………………………….. 112
6.2.2 Investigate the implementation of the IQMS by the Mpumalanga
DoE in the Nkangala region……………………………………………………… 113
6.2.3 Possible gaps in the implementation of the IQMS…………………………….. 115
6.3 Recommendations…………………………………………………………….…….. 115
6.3 Suggestions for further research……………………………………………….….. 116
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Annexure A: Questionnaire
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To our Heavenly Father who gave me the knowledge and talents to embrace this
study.
A special “thank you” to my entire family, but especially my sister, Annemarie Davis.
Without her support, guidance and motivation, this research report would not have
been possible.
I would like to express my gratitude to Prof BR Grobler for his guidance and
assistance in conducting this research study.
A word of thanks to the following people:
• Andre Swanepoel for his support throughout my M Com studies.
• Mr William Vivian for his insight, patience, assistance and continued support
throughout this study.
• The Mpumalanga Department of Education who gave me permission to use
their employees in this research study.
• Jacklyn Smith and STATKON for the statistical analyses of the study.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Strategic Management Model……………………………………………...17
Figure 2.2: McKinsey 7-S Framework…………………………………………………. 27
Figure 2.3: Total quality management process………………………………………. 42
Figure 2.4: Constituent part of Total Quality Management………………………….. 43
Figure 2.5: Strategy maps: the simple model of value creation…………………….. 47
Figure 2.6: Strategy map of Fulton County School System (FCSS)……………….. 48
Figure 2.7: Making strategy work model………………………………………………. 51
Figure 4.1 Bar chart of response rate per factor extracted…………………………. 67
Figure 4.2 Histogram: Tests of normality for the factor related to
strategy………………………………………………………………………. 69
Figure 4.3 Normal Q-Q Plot: Tests of normality for the factor related to
Strategy……………………………………………………………………… 74
Figure 4.4 Histogram: Tests of normality for the factor related to systems……….. 78
Figure 4.5 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot: Tests of normality for the factor
related to skills………………………………………………………………. 89
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Strategy implementation frameworks and key implementation
Variables………………………………………………………………...….… 24
Table 2.2: Principles and concepts of Total Quality Management……………….…. 42
Table 2.3 Comparison of constituent parts of TQM and implementation
levers of the McKinsey 7-S Framework…………………………………… 43
Table 4.1 Test for normality for the factor related to strategy: Descriptives………. 68
Table 4.2 Tests of normality for the factor related to strategy………………………. 68
Table 4.3 Comparison: Strategy versus position within the organisation…………. 70
Table 4.4 Kruskal Wallis Test and grouping variable: Test statistics
(strategy)………………………………………………………………………. 70
Table 4.5 Mann-Whitney Test: Test Statistics (strategy)……………………………. 71
Table 4.6 Comparison: Strategy versus full years worked………………………….. 71
Table 4.7 Mann-Whitney Test: Test Statistics (stragegy)…………………………… 72
Table 4.8 Group statistics: Strategy versus who is responsible for
the implementation of IQMS…………………………………………………72
Table 4.9 Factor analysis - Correlation matrix: structure……………………………. 73
Table 4.10 Kruskal Wallis Test and grouping variable: Test statistics…………….. 75
Table 4.11 Comparison: Structure versus position within the organisation………. 75
Table 4.12 Factor analysis: Communalities………………………………………….. 77
Table 4.13 Test for normality for the factor related to systems: Descriptives…….. 77
Table 4.14 Tests of normality for the factor related to systems……………………. 78
Table 4.15 Comparison: Systems versus position within the organisation………. 79
Table 4.16 Kruskal Wallis Test and grouping variable: Test statistics…………….. 79
Table 4.17 Factor analysis – Total Variance Explained (shared values)…………. 80
Table 4.18 Tests of normality for the factor related to shared values……….…….. 81
Table 4.19 Kruskal Wallis Test and grouping variable: Test statistics…….………. 81
Table 4.20 Comparison: Shared values versus position within the
organisation…………………………………………………………….….. 81
Table 4.21 Factor Analysis – Correlation Matrix (Style)……………………….……. 83
Table 4.22 Factor Analysis – KMO and Bartlett’s Test (Style)……………….…….. 83
Table 4.23 Tests of normality for the factor related to style…………………….…... 83
Table 4.24 Kruskal Wallis Test and grouping variable: Test statistics…………….. 83
Table 4.25 Comparison: Style versus position within the organisation……………. 84
Table 4.26 Factor Analysis – Communalities (Staff)………………………………… 85
Table 4.27 Tests of normality for the factor related to staff…………………………. 86
Table 4.28 Kruskal Wallis Test and grouping variable: Test statistics
(staff)………………………………………………………………………….. 86
Table 4.29 Comparison: Staff versus position within the organisation…………….. 87
Table 4.30 Factor Analysis – Correlation Matrix (Skills)…………………………….. 88
Table 4.31 Factor Analysis – Measure of Sampling Adequacy (Skills)……………. 88
Table 4.32 Tests of normality for the factor related to skills………………………… 89
Table 4.33 Kruskal Wallis Test and grouping variable: Test statistics…………….. 90
Table 4.34 Comparison: Skills versus position within the organisation…………… 90
Table 4.35 Comparisons: Structure versus the extent that IQMS has
identified specific needs of educators regarding support
and development…………………………………………………………… 92
Table 4.36 Independent Samples Test: Structure versus the extent
that IQMS has identified specific needs of educators
regarding support and development…………………………….………. 92
Table 4.37 Comparisons: Systems versus IQMS as monitoring mechanism
For school effectiveness (Q1.6)…………………………………….…….. 94
Table 4.38 Independent Samples Test: Systems versus IQMS as monitoring
mechanism for school effectiveness (Q1.6)……………………….……. 94
Table 4.39 Mann-Whitney Test: Test Statistics (skills)………………….…………… 97
Table 4.40 Comparisons: Skills versus the extent that IQMS has managed
to monitor school effectiveness (Q1.6)……………………….………….. 97
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Balanced Scorecard
A control system used by management that enables the
organisation to clarify its strategies, translate these
strategies into action and provide quantitative feedback as
to whether the strategy is creating value, satisfying its
customers, generating financial reward and leveraging core
competencies.
Culture
The set of important assumptions that members of an
organisation share in common.
Functional Tactics
Detailed statements of the activities to be employed to
achieve short-term objectives.
Grand strategies
The means by which the objectives are achieved, the long-
term plan that provides the basic direction for the shorter
term objectives.
Integrated Quality
Management System
A system that consists of three programmes, the
Developmental Appraisal, Performance Measurement and
Whole School Evaluation, which are aimed at enhancing
and monitoring performance of the education system.
Long-term objectives
The results that an organisation seeks over a multi-year
period and normally involves some or all of these areas:
technological leadership, productivity, employee relations,
public responsibility, employee development and
investment.
McKinsey 7-S
Framework
Is a management model that describes seven factors in
which to organise an organisation; it determines the way in
which the organisation operates.
Organisation An organisation is a system of consciously coordinated
activities or forces of two or more persons.
Organisational culture
Refers to the behaviours, ways of doing things, the ethos
and values that characterise a particular organisation.
Performance
management
Is a process or set of processes for establishing shared
understanding about what is to be achieved, and of
managing and developing people in a way which increases
the probability that it will be achieved in the short and
longer term.
Policies
Directives designed to guide the thinking, decisions, and
actions for managers and their subordinates in
implementing the organisations strategy.
Remote environment
The international, economic, social, technological,
international and natural environment and which are
beyond the control or influence of the organisation.
School Improvement
Plan
Is a “blueprint” of actions and processes needed to produce
school improvement and enables the school to measure its
own progress through ongoing self-evaluation.
Short-term objectives
Measurable outcomes to be achieved or planned to be
achieved in a period of one year or less.
Skills
The combined knowledge, skills and abilities of the staff.
The capabilities and competencies that exist within the
organisation. The specific capacity to manipulate objects.
Staff
This includes both the people who do the work and the
human resource systems that allow and encourage work to
be done, including performance appraisals, training,
motivation and morale.
Strategic management
Involves the planning, directing, organising and controlling
of an organisation’s strategy-related decisions and actions.
Is the set of decisions and actions that result in the
formulation and implementation of plans designed to
achieve organisations objectives.
Strategy
The fundamental pattern of present and planned resource
deployments and environmental interactions that indicate
how the organisation will achieve its objectives. Large-
scale, future oriented plans for interacting with the
environment to achieve the organisations objectives.
Strategy
implementation
Is concerned with the translation of strategy into
organisational action through organisational structure and
design, resource planning and the management of
strategic change.
Structure
It is the way in which the organisation is structured and who
reports to whom. The organisation’s formal reporting
relationships, procedures, controls, and authority and
decision-making processes. An organisation’s structure
affects and reflects its strategic planning goals and its
focus.
Style
Refers to the behaviours, ways of doing things, the ethos
and values that characterise a particular organisation. The
cultural style of the organisation and how key managers
behave in achieving the organisation's goals.
Systems The way an organisation operates; it includes amongst
others the collection and disbursement of money, materials
and information through specific procedures or policies.
Systems Theory An organisation is influenced by internal and external
systems and that these systems are interrelated.
Total Quality
Management
The management philosophy that seeks continuous
improvement in the quality of performance of all processes,
products and or/services of an organisation through a
practical orientation.
“. . . great strategy, shame about the implementation . . . ”(Okumus
and Roper, 1998, p. 218) captures the essence of the problem that
strategy implementation suffers from a general lack of academic
attention.
(Atkinson, 2006: 1441 – 1460)
CHAPTER 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Recent studies into the strategic management field indicate that there is a lack of
knowledge on strategy implementation and therefore, more research into this
important area of strategic management is essential. The lack of comprehensive
implementation frameworks is particularly raised by a number of scholars (Alexander,
1985; Noble, 1999). The key question seems to be how to ensure that the strategy is
successfully implemented? This question gives rise to the topic of this research
report, specifically applied to the Mpumalanga Department of Education.
In 2005 (Department of National Education, 2005:20) the Mpumalanga Department
of Education (DoE) had 719 registered public schools in the Nkangala region. An
agreement was reached in 2003 between the Education Labour Relations Council
(ELRC) and the National Department of Education, using minimal teacher input via
teacher unions, to integrate the existing programmes on quality management in
education. The Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS) is informed by the
Schedule 1 of the Employment of Educators Act, No. 76 of 1998 (ELRC, 2003). It
was officially introduced in 2004 after an agreement was reached in the Education
Labour Relations Council (ELRC Resolution 8 of 2003). The IQMS is an integrated
quality management system that consists of three programmes, aimed at enhancing
and monitoring the performance of the education system (http://www.elrc.ac.za). This
study is specifically investigating the perceptions of educators regarding the
implementation of the IQMS. The IQMS of the Mpumalanga Department of Education
is in its fourth year of existence.
Strategy implementation is one aspect of strategic management and it is therefore
necessary to explore firstly definitions of strategic management and secondly the
strategic management process. Atkinson (2006:1441) says that the key weakness of
strategic management practice is generally associated with the implementation
stage. Possible challenges associated with strategy implementation will be
mentioned in this report.
Okumus (2001:327) explored various implementation frameworks and compared
them with each other. The overriding assumption among all these frameworks is that
there must be a “fit” amongst the variables if the implementation process is to be
successful. He further identified ten key variables based on a critical review of
previous frameworks, which are strategy formulation, environmental uncertainty,
organisational structure, culture, operational planning, communication, resource
allocation, people, control and outcome. These “variables” are commonly referred to
as strategy implementation levers by academia. The McKinsey 7-S Framework is one
such a framework and will form the basis of analysis in this study regarding the
implementation of the IQMS. According to the McKinsey 7-S Framework, there are
six implementation levers of strategy once the strategy has been agreed upon, i.e.
style, skills, structure, systems, staff and shared values, which is placed at the heart
of it all (Silbiger, 1999:293). Each of these levers will be discussed in this report.
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
It is commonly accepted that the major aim of organisations is to achieve its
objectives, be it the private or public sector. In achieving its objectives, organisations
aim to sustain their business. Thus, one can safely assume that organisations aim to
reach objectives of sustainability, amongst others. The question of how to achieve
these objectives has been the subject of study by a multitude of researchers.
The problem statement to be investigated in this research project is based on the
achievement of objectives of the Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS). As
such, the problem statement can be defined as:
The implementation of the Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS) of the
Department of Education (DoE) in the Nkangala region is not meeting its quality
objectives.
This study will focus on the perceptions of educators regarding the implementation
efforts related to the IQMS of the Mpumalanga DoE in the Nkangala region.
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The research objectives address the purpose for the investigation into the
implementation efforts related to the IQMS of the Mpumalanga DoE. With reference
to the above stated problem statement the objectives of this study can be
summarised as follows:
1.3.1 Explore whether the IQMS objectives are met;
1.3.2 Investigate the perceptions of educators regarding the effective
implementation of the IQMS by the Mpumalanga Department of
Education in the Nkangala region;
1.3.3 Identify possible gaps in the implementation of the IQMS; and
1.3.4 Suggest possible actions to improve the implementation process of
the IQMS.
1.4 THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study is based on strategy implementation, specifically the perceptions of
educators regarding the implementation of the IQMS of the Mpumalanga DoE in the
Nkangala region. It aims to identify gaps, if any, in the implementation process of the
IQMS. This study will also reflect on the perceptions of a sample of the
“implementers” of the IQMS. It can also highlight positive/negative
aspects/perceptions of the system and the current implementation thereof. A possible
model on how it should be implemented may be identified, but this falls beyond the
scope of this research project.
Data will be collected by means of questionnaires. The questionnaire will be
structured around the seven implementation levers as described in the McKinsey 7-S
Framework (Rossouw, Le Roux and Groenewald 2003:35). The questionnaires will
be distributed to the sample that will be requested to complete the questionnaire. The
population in this case will consist of the staff at the regional office and educators in
the various schools of Mpumalanga Department of Education. The sample will be a
stratified sample containing principals, educators and administrative staff from the
various schools in the Nkangala district as well as officials in the provincial office.
Results obtained from the questionnaires will be presented and discussed. The
questionnaire aims to probe the perception of respondents with respect to the
effective implementation of the IQMS. This study aims to identify possible gaps in the
implementation of the IQMS. If these possible gaps can be identified and applicable
solutions recommended, it could enhance the overall implementation of the IQMS
and thus assist in the achievement of the key strategic objectives of the Mpumalanga
Department of Education. Possible recommendations will be provided as well as
possible further research opportunities.
In this chapter, the purpose of the research report was described. It also explained
the scope of the research. The next section will provide background information on
the IQMS and its implementation. The strategic management process, specifically
strategy implementation levers, will be discussed. It will also report on the existing
body of knowledge that specifically deal with strategy implementation efforts.
CHAPTER 2
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter will initially provide a broad outline of the Mpumalanga Department of
Education’s vision, mission and strategic goals. The background to the IQMS and its
objectives are discussed. This chapter also reports on the existing body of knowledge
in the strategic management field. It also offers insight into the strategic management
process as described by various academias. Concepts within the strategic
management process will be explored. This chapter will reflect on the strategy
implementation levers as identified and described in the McKinsey 7-S Framework.
Possible challenges with regard to strategy implementation will be mentioned as well
as potential aids in the form of Total Quality Management (TQM) and the Balanced
Scorecard that can assist in the implementation of a chosen strategy. This will not
form part of the questionnaire. The MPU DoE does not currently make use of the
Balanced Scorecard to implement strategy. These tools are briefly discussed as it
has been found to assist in strategy implementation (Kaplan and Norton, 1996b:85).
2.2 MPUMALANGA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
As stated previously, the strategic management process starts with the vision and
mission. The same is applicable to the Mpumalanga Department of Education. Below
are the vision, mission, values and strategic objectives for the Mpumalanga
Department of Education (http://www.mpumalanga.gov.za/education).
Vision: Providing quality education and training towards a better life for all.
Mission: The Mpumalanga Department of Education is committed to render quality
education and training, through good governance, effective teaching and maximum
utilisation of resources for socio-economic enhancement of all citizens.
Values:
• Uphold the Constitution of the RSA
• Promote the vision and mission of the Department
• Promote the stakeholder participation
• Uphold Batho Pele principles
• Promote skills development and equity
• Uphold professionalism and acceptable work ethos and creating a caring
environment for UBUNTU
• Ensure that all services are rendered effectively and efficiently
(Mpumalanga Department of Education, 2007,
http://www.mpumalanga.gov.za/education)
The process followed to formulate the strategy at the Mpumalanga Department of
Education is beyond the scope of this research project. This research project
specifically investigates the perceptions of educators regarding the implementation of
the IQMS. The IQMS will be discussed in the following section.
2.2.1. Background to the Integrated Quality Management System
An agreement was reached in 2003 (ELRC, 2003) to integrate the existing
programmes on quality management in education. The IQMS is informed by
Schedule 1 of the Employment of Educators Act, No. 76 of 1998. In South Africa
there are a range of instruments available to regulate teachers and they fall under the
collective of the IQMS. The IQMS is an integrated quality management system that
consists of three programmes, which are aimed at enhancing and monitoring
performance of the education system. These are the Developmental Appraisal (DA);
Performance Measurement (PM) and Whole School Evaluation (WSE). It should be
noted that if these instruments are used properly, it has the potential to enhance
“teaching” but the enhancement of performance in not just limited to the instruments,
but also to the attitude of the individual. According to Senge (1999:3), improved work
performance relies on an increase of capacity through the establishment of a
conducive environment.
The purpose of DA is to appraise individual educators in a transparent manner with a
view to determining areas of strength and weakness, and to draw up programmes for
individual development.
The purpose of PM is to evaluate individual teachers for salary progression, grade
progression, affirmation of appointments and rewards and incentives.
The purpose of WSE is to evaluate the overall effectiveness of a school as well as
the quality of its teaching and learning.
The IQMS has the following objectives:
• To identify specific needs of educators, schools and district offices for support
and development.
• To provide support for continued growth.
• To promote accountability.
• To monitor the institution’s overall effectiveness.
• To evaluate educator performance.
(ELRC, Resolution 8 of 2003).
The various individuals and structures involved in implementing the IQMS at the
micro-level are the Principal; the Educator; School Management Teams (SMT) (for
purposes of IQMS needs’ it consists of the principal, the deputy principal and Heads
of Departments); the Staff Development Team (SDT); Development Support Group
(DSG); District/ Local office; Whole School Evaluation (WSE) Unit; and a Grievance
Committee (ELRC, Resolution 8 of 2003).
The above mentioned list can be divided into two groups, the first group to implement
and the second group to control. The Principal, Educator, SMT, SDT and DSG forms
part of the first group and the District/Local office, WSE unit and Grievance
Committee form part of the second group. According to the IQMS handbook for
School Based Educators (2007:2), the principal has the overall responsibility to
ensure that the IQMS is implemented uniformly and effectively at the school. The
second group is part of departmental structures while the first group exists at school
level. The SMT assists with the broad planning and implementation of IQMS. The
district/local office has the overall responsibility of advocacy, training and proper
implementation of the IQMS.
The research project will not target all of these individuals or structures, as it will
mainly focus on the principals, educators and district officials. According to Pearce
and Robinson (2007:12-14) this forms part of the Strategic Analysis and choice
component. The next section will broadly outline the strategic goals of the
Mpumalanga DoE.
2.2.2 Strategic goals of the National Government for 2006/07 – 2008/09.
The Government pursues the following eight strategic goals in education: it aims to
make provincial systems work by making co-operative governance work, which
means between the provincial department, the regional offices and the various
schools. Another goal is to develop the quality of the teaching force and non-teaching
staff through the Skills Development Plan. To create a vibrant further education and
training system to equip youth and adults to meet the social and economic needs of
the 21st century by ensuring active learning through outcomes based education;
dealing urgently and purposefully with the HIV/AIDS pandemic through education; to
significantly reduce illiteracy amongst youth and adults (ABET centres) and to make
schools centers of community life. It also aims to end conditions of physical
degradation in South African schools.
2.2.3 Strategic goals of the Mpumalanga Department of Education for 2006/07
– 2008/09.
The Mpumalanga DoE aims to make their provincial systems work by making co-
operative governance work, that means between the provincial department, the
regional offices and the various schools. According to the Annual Performance Plan
2006/07 – 2008/09 of the Mpumalanga DoE (2006: 5), this entails the implementation
of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), ensuring effective and functioning
SGB’s and that classroom learning time is fully utilised are among the aspects to
ensure that provincial systems work. Another goal is to develop the quality of the
teaching force and non-teaching staff through the Skills Development Plan.
Developing a provincial education system that takes care of the welfare of learners
by amongst others linking the curriculum with provincial growth and economic needs;
ensuring active learning through outcomes based education; dealing urgently and
purposefully with the HIV/AIDS pandemic through education and to significantly
reduce illiteracy amongst youth and adults (ABET centres). To put systems in place
to fight corruption and crime will enhance the welfare of learners. Internally the
Department wants to improve its training system and its funding and budgeting
processes. Through all of this the Mpumalanga DoE is aiming to create a vibrant
system to equip youth and adult learners for the “world of work”, to improve
knowledge of and access to Furhter Education and Training (FET) Colleges.
These strategic goals form the basis of the investigation into the IQMS
implementation efforts as this is what the various schools in the Nkangala region are
striving to achieve. The IQMS is one tool to assist them to reach its strategic
objectives by 2010.
The objectives/ strategies of the Mpumalanga DoE and the IQMS have been
mentioned. Before continuing with the study, it is important to define the concepts
related to the strategic management process that will be discussed in the next
section. Strategy implementation in general will also be discussed.
2.3 CONCEPTS WITHIN THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PROCESS
2.3.1 Concepts
The theoretical framework of this study is situated within the strategic management
process. It is therefore necessary to firstly define the strategic management process
and secondly, to position strategy implementation and control in the strategic
management process. In an attempt to address these issues, several sources were
consulted, including journal articles, textbooks and workbooks. It explains the
theoretical concepts that deal with the strategic management process, with a focus
on implementation.
According to Mintzberg, Lampel and Ahlstrand (1998a), there is no single, universally
accepted definition of strategy; this is a point that many in the field of strategy agree
upon. So where does the concept “strategic management” come from? It is important
to define the concepts that will be dealt with in this study. Betts and Ofori (1992)
states that the long-term survival of most organisations depends upon effective
management based on sound strategic planning.
For organisations to survive in the long-term, they must be sustainable. To be
sustainable, organisations have to remain competitive and be aware of the
environment in which they operate to ensure that they remain one step ahead.
Furthermore, Fullan (2005) is of the opinion that sustainability is at the heart of all the
dilemmas in education reform. Hargreaves and Fink (2000) indicate that sustainability
is “not simply whether something will last”. They (ibid) indicate that “sustainability
addresses how particular initiatives can be developed without compromising the
development of others in the surrounding environment now and in the future”. Based
on this, one can assume that strategic management is also applicable to schools.
Before one can talk of strategic management, one must understand the concept of
strategy first.
De Wit and Meyer (1998:5) stated that there are three dimensions to strategy:
1. Strategy process is defined as the manner in which strategies come about
and is concerned with the how, who, and when of strategy;
2. Strategy content is described as the product of the strategy process and is
the “what” of strategy; and
3. Strategy context is concerned with the where of strategy and refers to the
organisational and environmental circumstances under which the strategy
process and strategy content are determined.
When reflecting on the first dimension it is important to note that in the case of the
Mpumalanga Department of Education, the government of South Africa provides a
mandate to the National Department of Education which is then filtered through to the
various provinces right down to the regions and finally to the individual schools. The
second dimension which refers to the “what” of the mandate is decided upon by the
provincial department with input from the regional offices. The third dimension relates
to the structure and culture of the department as a whole and also of the individual
schools.
Many authors have defined strategic management, but one of the most common
definitions is the one by Pearce and Robinson (2007:3) which states that “strategic
management is the set of decisions and actions that result in the formulation and
implementation of plans designed to achieve an organisations objectives”. Strategic
management involves the planning, directing, organising and controlling of an
organisation’s strategy-related decisions and actions. As mentioned earlier, one of
the purposes of strategic management is the need for sustainability. In the case of
the Mpumalanga DoE, the need for government funded public schools to remain
sustainable can be one of accounting for tax payer’s money, as resources are limited.
It also relates back to the objectives of the government to provide education and
training. No country can afford to have a schooling system that is not able to sustain
itself or deliver on its objectives.
Quinn (1980:7) stated that “a strategy is the pattern or plan that integrates an
organisations major goal, policies and action sequences into a cohesive whole”.
Another definition is by Thompson and Strickland (2003:6) who define strategic
management as “the managerial process of forming a strategic vision, setting
objectives, crafting a strategy, implementing and executing the strategy, and then
over time initiating whatever corrective adjustments in the vision, objectives, strategy
and execution are deemed appropriate”.
Strategy happens on all levels of an organisation. On a macro level, the vision,
objectives and the crafting of the strategy is done by the provincial department and
“handed down” to the regions. The various regions will monitor the implementation of
the strategy, but the real execution of the strategy rests at the micro level, the
individual schools. The individual schools must implement the strategic plan of the
Region and Province, but the individual schools have their own unique plan, the
School Improvement Plan (SIP). There is a major weakness here in that the IQMS is
designed outside the school and yet is has to be implemented in the school by
people who had little to no say in its design. The IQMS system was designed by the
Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC), together with the National Department
of Education, using minimal teacher input via teacher unions. Decisions with respect
to the what, who and why of performance management (IQMS) are far removed from
the “chalk face” of the classroom and an implementation gap all too easily arises.
Before a strategy can be implemented, it must be developed and it normally starts
with the creation of the vision (the “what”) and mission (the “how”). Once decided
upon, it must be implemented. According to Galpin (1997:12) the way a strategy is
developed has an impact on the way it is implemented. When planning does not take
into account the implications of aligning people with strategy, the effort may fail. This
can lead to low staff morale, poor allocation of resources according to the strategy,
poor service delivery and so on. Hamel and Prahalad (1994:35) promote an
approach to strategy development that “includes people from across intra-
organisational boundaries”. Education in South Africa is governed by a set of
policies. Government has a specific mandate and this mandate needs to be
implemented. One can safely assume that most of the implementers of the IQMS had
no, or took very little part during the planning phase as the IQMS system was
designed by the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC), together with the
National Department of Education (Grobler and Mestry, 2007:9). School managers in
South Africa have little or no part in the design of mandates, but are tasked to
implement these mandates (Department of National Education, 2005a).
According to the above, vision, objectives and strategy formulation and execution
takes place on different levels of the organisation. Strategic issues require top
management decisions, in this case the provincial department. It requires resources
of the organisation, it is future oriented and is implemented on various levels within
the organisation. It is important to briefly explain the various levels in an organisation
as each level is responsible for various tasks within the strategic management
process.
James (1996:11) states that there are three levels of management – lower
management, middle management and top management. On a macro level, in the
case of the Mpumalanga DoE, the lower management will be the School
Management Teams (SMT). The middle management will be the regional officials
and the top management will be the provincial department of education. On a micro
level, the SMT will be the top management. Various functions are performed at each
of these levels. The lower management level is normally concerned with directing or
supervising staff in detailed, narrow task structures and processes. Middle
management directs other managers and translates and implements top
management policies and strategies. Top management creates policy, objectives and
strategies that are used to guide the organisation to achieve its aims.
Various definitions of strategic management have been discussed. Before continuing
with the concepts related to the strategic management process it is important to
define what an organisation is. According to Chester I Barnard’s classic definition in
Kreitner and Kinicki (2004:635), “an organisation is a system of consciously
coordinated activities or forces of two or more persons”. Gibson, Ivancevich and
Donelly (1997:4) define an organisation as “a coordinated unit consisting of at least
two people who function to achieve a common goal or set of goals”. For the purposes
of this report the organisation will be defined on a macro level as the Mpumalanga
DoE and on a micro level as the individual schools. “Not only must schools improve
their work performance, but they must also sustain it” (Flanagan and Finger,
1998:154).
The researcher chose the strategic management model of Pearce and Robinson
(2007:12-14) as it represents the strategic management process as a linear process
in a logical flow of events. Strategic management comprises the following
components: it starts with the organisational mission which is the unique purpose of
the organisation and includes broad statements about its purpose, philosophy
(vision) and goals; in this case the Mpumalanga Department of Education and it
identifies the scope of its operations. It describes the organisations “product” which is
“quality education and training through good governance and effective teaching”
(http://www.mpumalanga.gov.za/education). According to Hoyle and Wallace (2005)
there is an element of coercion present here namely that central government officials
require school leaders to faithfully transmit externally specified goals linked to the
over-arching political goal of ministers for improving public service.
According to the model of Pearce and Robinson (2007:10) an internal analysis must
be conducted where the organisation analyses the financial, human and physical
resources as well as the strengths and weaknesses. To “succeed” in the vision of the
organisation, the organisation must, amongst others, be aware of its internal
environment. On a macro level, the provincial department must be aware of the
internal environment, and on a micro level, each school must be aware of its
resources as well as strengths and weaknesses. Schools must annually submit a SIP
which is based on an understanding of the internal environment. However, the SIP is
also a mandated process (SA, 2007). Such mandates tend to set up a process of
resistance of counter control that undermines the initial attempt at control. Mandates
do not allow for the various human elements accompanying them and trust,
responsiveness, and emphasis on mutual interests, easy and frequent
communication and the acceptance of mutual control, are not indicated in the
discourse of mandate documents. Public schools thus often engineer arrangements
that are “acceptance” in name only (Stott and Walker, 1999:50 – 59)
An analysis of the external environment is next in the strategic management process.
It consists of the conditions and forces and shows the external environment as three
interactive segments: the remote, industry and operating environments. Rossouw, Le
Roux and Groenewald (2003:35) define the remote environment as the international,
economic, social, technological, international and natural environment which are
beyond the control or influence of the organisation.
Strategic Analysis is the process of assessment of the external environment to
provide the combination of long-term objectives and generic strategies. Long-term
objectives: typically involve some of the following areas – productivity, employee
relations, employee development, return on investment and technological leadership.
According to the Mpumalanga DoE Annual Performance Plan
(http://www.mpumalanga.gov.za/education) some of the long-term objectives of the
Mpumalanga DoE include developing the quality of the teaching force and non-
teaching staff, developing a provincial education system that takes care of the
welfare of learners by amongst others linking the curriculum with provincial growth
and economic needs.
The three fundamental options of generic strategies are cost, differentiation or focus
strategies. The grand strategies are the means by which the objectives are achieved.
A grand strategy in the case of the Mpumalanga DoE is Outcomes Based Education
(OBE). The short term objectives are defined; it is the results that the organisation
seeks over a period of one year or less. It provides guidance for their operational and
functional activities which are detailed statements of the activities to be employed to
achieve short-term objectives.
Policies that empower action aim to increase managerial effectiveness by
standardising routine decisions and empowering or expanding the discretion of
managers and subordinates in implementing business strategies. The IQMS is a
policy designed to foster managerial effectiveness by standardising quality
management processes in the organisation amongst others. Restructuring, re-
engineering and refocusing the organisation is done to get the work done efficiently
and effectively.
Strategic control tracks how the strategy is being implemented, detects problems or
changes and makes the required changes. Continuous improvement provides a way
for managers to allow the organisation to respond more proactively and timely to
developments. The regional office plays a role in the monitoring of the
implementation of the SIP.
As per the components of strategic management mentioned above, it is important to
note that strategy implementation starts with the compiling of a vision and mission
statement. The vision is regarded as the starting point. Denton (2001:309) states that
mission statements and strategic objectives are often created in the hope that they
can help push the organisation towards some desired destination. Kaplan and Norton
(2004:13) state that public-sector and non-profit organisations generally respond to
the challenge of formulating new strategies and rededicating themselves – through
inspirational new mission and vision statements – to deliver increased value to their
customer segments and constituents.
The one problem that virtually all organisations face is the inability to execute their
new strategies successfully. Hoyle and Wallace (2005) state that an implementation
gap exists between proclaimed goals embodied in mandated policy initiatives,
typically formulated at a central administrative level, and their achievement through
implementation in schools. A gap can already be identified because many individuals
were not part of the mission formulation, yet they are expected to implement it.
The process followed to formulate the strategy at the Mpumalanga Department of
Education is beyond the scope of this research project. However, it is acknowledged
that the strategy formulation process impacts severely on the implementation efforts.
This study is based on strategy implementation, specifically the implementation
efforts of the Mpumalanga DoE in the Nkangala region relative to the IQMS.
The diagram below depicts the strategic management process as explained by
Pearce and Robinson.
Figure 2.1: Strategic Management Model
(Source: Adapted from Pearce, J.A. and Robinson, R.B. 2007. Formulation,
Implementation, and Control of Competitive Strategy. 10th edition. McGraw-Hill, New
York. p. 11)
2.3.2 Systems Theory
The coordinated unit as included in Gibson’s definition is a key concept and it links to
management theory and specifically to systems theory. Management theory has
undergone a dramatic change in recent years with the reintroduction of systems
theory (Regenesys Academic Team, 2007:7). Organisations cannot function
independently or as isolated entities. System theory implies that an organisation is
influenced by internal and external systems and that these systems are interrelated.
In the case of the individual schools, they are subjected to the policies and objectives
of the provincial department. If the individual schools succeed or fail, it has a direct
Company Mission (vision), Social
Responsibility, and Ethics
External environment
Internal analysis
Strategic analysis and choice
Long term objectives Generic and Grand Strategies
Short term objectives,
reward systems
Functional Tactics
Policies
Organisational structure, leadership and culture
Strategic control, innovation and entrepreneurship
Feedback F
eedb
ack
Strategy F
ormulation
Strategy Im
plementation
impact on the achievement of objectives by the provincial department, which then
have an impact on the national objectives of the government.
Olsen and Haslett (2002:452) explain that systemic thinking brings together in one
discipline the concepts of connectedness and interdependencies, feedback and
feedback processes and mental models. A systemic approach can aid in the
understanding of the strategic management process as it focuses on a holistic view.
The implementation of a strategy will be discussed next.
2.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF INTENDED STRATEGY
Based on the strategic management model (figure 2.1) by Pearce and Robinson
(2007:11), as depicted in section 2.3.1, once a strategy has been formulated, it
needs to be implemented. This is where the challenge comes in. Organisations have
various structural forms and organisational processes to choose from when
implementing strategy. The managerial task of implementing and executing the
strategy entails assessing what it will take to develop the needed organisational
capabilities and to reach the targeted objectives on schedule. Various scholars’
definitions of strategy implementation will be explored in this section.
According to Pettinger (2004:128) the success of any strategy is on how it is
implemented on the one hand and on the other hand the attainment of “fit” between
the strategies, how the firm is organised and managed. The most important “fit” is
between the strategy and organisational capabilities, strategy and reward structures,
strategy and internal support systems, and between strategy and organisational
culture. Thompson and Strickland expanded further on the findings of Pettinger.
Thompson and Strickland (2003:19) state that managing the strategy implementation
process requires, amongst others, establishing strategy-supportive policies and
operating procedures; tying the reward structure to the achievement of targeted
results; installing information, communication, and operating systems that enable
organisation personnel to carry out their strategic roles effectively; allocation of
organisation resources; and exerting the internal leadership needed to drive
implementation forward and to improve on how the strategy is being executed.
Reflecting on the purpose, objectives and processes of the IQMS, one can see that it
links in with the statement by Thompson and Strickland.
Pettinger (2004:128) agrees with Thompson and Strickland and state that a range of
factors are necessary to translate strategy and purpose into productive and effective
activities. According to him it involves the following:
• Assessing if what is envisaged is achievable and then obtaining and allocating
the necessary resources;
• Designing an organisation to support the strategy and developing sub-
strategies that reinforces the chosen strategy; and
• Creating suitable coordination and control features to ensure monitoring,
review and evaluation.
These factors mentioned by Pettinger are also applicable to the Mpumalanga DoE.
The researcher assumes that before designing the IQMS, an assessment was done
to establish whether it is applicable to the education sector taking into consideration
the resources available. Communication between the SGB and SMT provides
support for the system and reinforces the strategy for IQMS. The regional offices
have been tasked to oversee the implementation of the IQMS in the individual
schools.
According to Johnson and Scholes (1999:22), strategy implementation “is concerned
with the translation of strategy into organisational action through organisational
structure and design, resource planning and the management of strategic change”.
When conducting the internal and external analysis according to the strategic
management process as defined by Pearce and Robinson (2007:11), challenges/
pitfalls must be considered. The following section will consider the challenges faced
in strategic management when implementing the chosen strategy.
2.4.1 Challenges related to strategy implementation
Possible pitfalls/challenges have been identified by numerous scholars over the
years. Atkinson (2007) state that the key weakness of strategic management practice
is generally associated with the implementation stage. Mintzberg (1994) asserts that
more than half of the strategies devised by organisations are never actually
implemented! The problem with implementing strategic plans is the human element,
people must implement it and people will be affected by it. Considering this, it is
important to note that an organisation is made up of people; systems and processes;
it is a social construct. This is supported by systems theory as explained earlier. At
the heart of any organisation is the individual, “tied” together by the shared values as
will be explained by the McKinsey 7-S Framework in section 2.4.3.
Corboy and O’Corrbui (1999:29) identify the “. . . deadly sins of strategy
implementation” which involve:
• a lack of understanding of how the plan (strategy) should be implemented;
• customers and staff not fully appreciating the plan (strategy);
• unclear individual responsibilities in the change process;
• difficulties and obstacles not acknowledged, and
• ignoring the day-to-day business imperatives, in this case, teaching.
The first sin relates to a lack of understanding of how the strategy should be
implemented. Theory indicates among others that there are three methods of
implementing a new strategy. The big bang model implies that on one day the old
system stops and on the next day the new one starts (Regenesys Academic Team,
2008:41). The pilot study model of implementation implies that an experimental
project will be run on a smaller scale to see how the proposed change would work in
practice. The third model is called parallel running where two or more operations are
maintained simultaneously and consequently it is expensive. The IQMS has clear
guidelines and timeframes for implementation. As such, one would assume that this
should not be a major challenge for the Mpumalanga DoE and the various schools.
The second challenge identified is a lack of understanding. Again, the policy
document on IQMS clearly states what it is intending to achieve, but whether the
implementers really understand it is another matter. Customers and staff not fully
appreciating the strategy is another challenge. This can include all stakeholders,
both internal and external. The fourth challenge relates to the individual being
unclear about his/her responsibilities in the change process. The challenge here is
whether all stakeholders were clear about their roles and responsibilities with regards
to the implementation of the IQMS.
Difficulties and obstacles not acknowledged, recognised or acted upon is another
challenge and links directly to the feedback process as the strategy is implemented.
This relates back to strategic control as described in the strategic management
process as defined by Pearce and Robinson. Strategic control includes monitoring
and evaluation (Pearce and Robinson, 2007:395). With regards to the IQMS, the
monitoring process is an ongoing activity, which is conducted by departmental
officials, SMTs, SDTs and DSGs. The district/local office should ensure that the
implementation process in schools is monitored on an ongoing basis. The SDT
monitors effectiveness of the IQMS and reports to the relevant persons and is also
responsible for developing the SIP. The last challenge/ pitfall identified are ignoring
the day-to-day business imperatives. This could mean for example not paying
enough attention to basic effective learning and teaching, absenteeism of learners
and educators, learner teacher ratio and so forth.
Beer and Eisenstat (2000:37) listed six silent killers of strategy implementation.
These comprise a top-down/laissez-faire senior management style; unclear strategic
intentions and conflicting priorities; an ineffective senior management team; poor
vertical communication; weak co-ordination across functions, businesses or borders;
and inadequate down-the-line leadership skills development. The question one begs
to ask is how does one overcome these barriers?
According to Becher (2007) to bridge the gap between strategy and employees' day-
to-day execution of that strategy, an organisation’s executives must succeed in four
areas:
1. They must motivate employees toward the strategic objectives by
communicating those goals in a way that is relevant to all.
2. They must manage operational programs in a way that empowers individuals
to take ownership of the strategic objectives.
3. They must proactively monitor the organisation's progress toward incremental
milestones and alert stakeholders to unexpected outcomes.
4. They must measure operational performance in a way that clearly identifies
both problems and areas for growth. When an organisation has achieved
these four goals, it has achieved operational alignment.
The premise is that if one is aware of the possible pitfalls, one can minimise the risk
of it occurring. This can include a prevention plan and a contingency plan. However,
it is not necessarily that easy. Possible challenges/ pitfalls to strategy implementation
have been discussed. The next section will provide information regarding various
strategy implementation frameworks to assist in the implementation of the intended
strategy.
2.4.2 Strategy implementation frameworks and models
Various scholars have developed implementation frameworks over the years.
Okumus (2001:327) developed a table consisting of various strategy implementation
frameworks and key implementation variables. He states that since early 1980,
several frameworks have been developed which are largely conceptual and/or
descriptive. Each framework incorporates different numbers and types of variables.
All scholars emphasise the fact that there are continuous interactions among the
variables and it is the ongoing interactions that allows for implementation. This is
consistent with systems thinking.
He (ibid) further explored various implementation frameworks and compared them
with each other. The overriding assumption among all these frameworks is that there
must be a “fit” among the variables if the implementation process is to be successful.
Okumus (2001:336) conducted research on strategy implementation in two
international hotel groups and one of his findings was that organisational learning
should also be considered as a new context variable in strategy implementation.
The empirical findings of his study indicated that the variables identified play
important roles in designing and implementing strategies. When one looks at the
various key variables identified above, one can see that the most important variables
are firstly organisational structure and people, secondly strategy formulation and
resource allocation and thirdly communication and organisational culture. During
implementation, it is critical that the organisational culture and business process are
compatible. Consideration must be given to the physical changes to be implemented
and the behavioural changes that are required.
The following table lists the key variables that lead to successful strategy
implementation according to the study of Okumus (2001: 328). When comparing the
variables in the table below, one can see the similarities with regards to the McKinsey
7-S Framework which deals with strategy, structure, style (leadership), staff, shared
values (organisational culture) etc. This table provides insight as to the various key
variables that must be present when implementing a strategy. One can reason that
this is also applicable to the implementation efforts of the IQMS. Comparing the key
variables identified by Okumus to the implementation levers utilised in implementing
the IQMS can provide an indication of possible gaps.
Organisational structure, strategy formulation, organisational culture and people have
been identified as key variables in the table below which encompasses conceptual
frameworks in the strategic management field, empirically developed or tested
frameworks in the strategic management field and frameworks in the international
management field.
The symptoms related to unsuccessful implementation are low staff morale, poor
quality service, destructive organisational power struggles and politics, unsatisfactory
performance, unethical behaviour and corruption, high staff turnover and so on
(Regenesys Academic Team, 2008:7).
Table 2.1: Strategy implementation frameworks and key implementation variables
(Source adapted from: Okumus, F. 2001. Towards a strategy implementation
framework. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 13/7:
328)
In this section strategy implementation frameworks and models were presented and
then key variables “involved” in strategy implementation were identified. The
variables mentioned earlier are commonly referred to as “strategy implementation
Key variables Environ-
ment
Strategy
Formu-
lation
Organi-
sational
struc-
ture
Leader-
ship
Organi-
sational
Culture
Opera-
tional
Planning
Resource
Allocation People ª Commu-
nication
Control
and
feedback
Out-
come
External
Partner
compa-
nies
Conceptual frameworks in the strategic management field
Stonich (1982) * ** ** ** ** ** ** * * ** Hrebiniak and
Joyce (1984) ** ** * * * ** * ** *
Galbraith and
Kazanjian
(1986)
* * ** * ** * ** ** * **
Aaker (1995) * ** ** * ** * ** ** ** * Thompson and
Strickland
(1995)
* ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** * *
Empirically developed or tested frameworks in the strategic management field
Waterman et
al. (1980) ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** *
Hambrick and
Cannella
(1989)
** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * *
Pettigrew and
Whipp (1991) ** * ** ** ** * ** ** * *
Skivington and
Daft (1991) * ** ** * * ** ** ** * *
Schmelzer and
Olsen (1994) ** ** ** * ** ** ** * ** **
Bryson and
Bromiley
(1993)
** * * ** * ** ** ** * **
Frameworks in the international management field
Hrebiniak
(1992) ** ** ** ** * ** * ** ** * **
Yip (1992) * ** ** ** * * ** * * Roth et al.
(1991) * * ** ** * * * ** ** *
Notes:
Referred to as key variable **
Variable included or stated in analysis *
ª Variable of people includes rewards, training, recruitment and the style of managers and employees
levers” by academia. The various strategy implementation levers as defined by the
McKinsey 7-S Framework will be discussed in the next section.
2..5 Strategy Implementation levers
The perfect fit is strived for but never fully attained due to continuous changes
externally – this is also the primary idea behind the seven S’s of strategy and
organisation as discussed by Waterman, Peters and Philips (1980). It is implied that
while some models of organisational effectiveness go in and out of fashion, one that
has persisted is the McKinsey 7-S Framework. According to Rossouw et al.
(2003:151) the McKinsey 7-S Framework depicts the key components that managers
must consider to ensure that a strategy filters through to the daily life of an
organisation.
The basic premise of the model is that there are seven internal aspects of an
organisation that need to be aligned if it is to be successful. The 7-S Framework is a
management model that describes seven factors in which to organise an
organisation; it determines the way in which the organisation operates. These factors
are interdependent and if one of them is neglected, it will have a knock-on effect and
may affect the other six factors; this is also what system theory proclaims. The
McKinsey 7-S Framework suggests that once the strategy has been developed,
managers must focus on the other six components to ensure effective execution. The
McKinsey 7-S Framework captures both the internal and external environment and
also gives specificity to variables of strategy. Skills and systems are generally not
given much attention in other models (see table 2.1 in section 2.4). The model also
reflects on systems thinking, its’ interrelated- and interconnectedness.
The Framework 7-S model involves seven interdependent factors which are
categorised as either “hard” or “soft” elements:
• Hard elements: strategy, structure and systems
• Soft elements: shared values, skills, style and staff.
The “hard” elements can be directly influenced by management and are easier to
identify. The “soft” elements are less tangible and more influenced by culture. It is not
that easy to describe but are as important as the hard elements. Silbiger (1999:293)
explains that the McKinsey 7-S model (figure 2.2) provides a framework with which to
consider an organisation as a whole, so that the organisation’s problems may be
diagnosed and a strategy may be developed and implemented.
• Structure. An organisation’s structure affects and reflects its strategic
planning goals and its focus. It is the way in which the organisation is
structured and who reports to whom.
• Systems. This is how an organisation operates, including the collection and
disbursement of money, materials and information by these procedures. The
procedures, processes and routines that characterise how the work should be
done.
• Skills. These are the combined knowledge, skills and abilities of the staff. The
capabilities and competencies that exist within the organisation.
• Style. Style or culture refers to the behaviours, ways of doing things, the ethos
and values that characterise a particular organisation. The cultural style of the
organisation and how key managers behave in achieving the organisation's
goals.
• Staff. This includes both the people who do the work and the human resource
systems that allow and encourage work to be done, including performance
appraisals, training, motivation and morale.
• Shared values (super-ordinate goals). These are the core of the
organisation – the guiding principles, the fundamental ideas around which an
organisation is built.
• Strategy. This refers to the actions that an organisation plans as response to,
or anticipation of, changes in its external environment.
(Adapted from Silbiger pp.295-298).
Figure 2.2: McKinsey 7-S Framework
(Source: Adapted from: Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H.Jr. 1983. In search of
excellence – lessons from America’s best-run companies. Warner Books: New York.
p.10)
The framework suggests that once the strategy has been developed, the other six
components are used to ensure that the strategy is implemented. Shared values
(culture) were placed in the middle of the framework, as it is believed that all the
other components have a definitive influence on the culture. This is depicted in figure
2.2. The concept of fit among all the dimensions of the organisation has emerged
from several sources. Miles and Snow (1984) see fit as “a process as well as a state
– to align the organisation with its environment and to arrange resources internally in
support of that alignment”.
Each of the implementation levers will now be discussed in detail. The first three,
strategy, structure and systems relate to the “hard” elements. The remaining four
which are shared values, style, staff and skills relate to the “soft” elements.
Strategy
Structure
Skills
Staff
Shared values
Systems
Style
2.5.1 Strategy
Strategy refers to the direction and scope of the organisation over the long term. This
includes both the short-term and long-term objectives. Short-term objectives
according to Pearce and Robinson (2007:293) translate long-range aspirations into
this year’s targets for action. If well developed, then these objectives will provide
clarity and it will serve as a powerful motivator and facilitator of effective strategy
implementation. They further state that short-term objectives help implement strategy
in at least three ways:
• Short term objectives “operationalise” long term objectives by setting specific
targets during the coming year, month or week;
• Discussion about and agreement on short-term objectives help raise issues
and potential conflicts within the organisation; and
• Short term objectives assist strategy implementation by identifying measurable
outcomes of action plans, which can be used to make feedback, correction
and evaluation more relevant and acceptable.
With regards to short term objectives mentioned above, the IQMS instructs the
principal to establish a SDT. The SDT together with the SMT must develop the SIP
that incorporates the strategic objectives of the Strategic Plan of the department and
the Personal Growth Plans (PGPs) of individual educators. The SIP sets targets and
timeframes for school improvement and must be revised periodically, setting new
goals/ priorities, which will reflect the progress made. SIPs from the various schools
are submitted to the Regional office. This informs their planning so as to enable them
to coordinate provision of in-service training (INSET) and so on.
The point on discussion and agreement of short term objectives above is also
addressed in the IQMS. The SDT, together with the SMT will be responsible for
liaising with educators as well as regional offices to coordinate the provision of
developmental programmes for educators.
The IQMS framework clearly indicates how the system should be implemented in the
short and long term (IQMS for School Based Educators, 2003:64-66). Short term
objectives have the following qualities: they are measurable; they highlight priorities
and are linked to long term objectives.
Long-term objectives on the other hand, as stated by Thompson and Martin
(2005:65), relate to the desired performance and results on an ongoing basis. Pearce
and Robinson (2007:12) defines long-term objectives as the results that an
organisation seeks over a multi-year period and that it normally involves some or all
of these areas: technological leadership, productivity, employee relations, public
responsibility, employee development and investment.
Sterling (2003:30) states that some strategies fail because there is insufficient buy-in
to or understanding of the strategy among those who need to implement it. He further
states that the surest way to ensure that someone understands a strategy is to
involve him or her in its creation. As stated earlier, the various individual schools
were not necessarily involved in the formulation of the strategy by the department,
but should be involved in formulating the short term objectives of the school via the
SIP.
2.5.2 Structure
According the McKinsey 7S-Framework, structure is the manner in which the
organisation is organised and it reflects the reporting lines.
According to Hitt, Ireland and Hoskisson (2005:341) an organisational structure
“specifies the organisations formal reporting relationships, procedures, controls, and
authority and decision-making processes. They also state that when a structure’s
elements (reporting relationship, procedures etc.) are properly aligned with one
another, that structure facilitates effective implementation of the organisations
strategies. In this study, the “organisation” mentioned above refers to the individual
schools implementing the IQMS. One can safely say that structure is concerned with
processes used to complete organisational tasks.
Teare, Costaand and Eccles (1998:58) write that organisations that operate in a
constantly changing and dynamic environment will need to have a flexible structure
whereas organisations that operate in a stable environment lend themselves to a
more familiar mechanistic/ bureaucratic structure. One can safely assume that most
schools have a very bureaucratic structure. Some of the main functions listed
provide:
• A formal allocation of work rules;
• Channels for collaborative working;
• Boundaries of authority and lines of communication;
• A means of allocating power and responsibility; and
• Prescriptive levels of formality and complexity.
The organisation must be designed to enable individuals to perform their tasks and
hence carry out the desired strategy. Structure as well as the proper selection,
training and development of its people are crucial to the success of any organisation.
Galbraith and Kazanjian (1986:1) share this view. McManus and Botten (2006:12)
explain structure to imply a permanent arrangement of tasks and activities that is the
formal configuration of roles and procedures which is the framework of the
organisation. One of the most important key variables identified in the study of
Okumus, mentioned earlier, is structure.
Strategy implementation requires an integrative point of view. Attention should not
only be given to the organisational structure, but also to the cultural aspects and
human resource perspective. This is explained further on under shared values and
staff.
2.5.3 Systems
Systems, as in the McKinsey 7-S Framework, imply the way an organisation
operates; it includes amongst others the collection and disbursement of money,
materials and information through specific procedures or policies. McManus and
Botten (2006:14) state that all organisations have at least four types of resources at
their disposal. They are people, financial, physical and technological resources. One
can assume that all the schools have the first three resources at their disposal, but in
varying quantities and qualities. With regards to the last resource, not all schools
have technological resources. Already this should indicate that one must expect
challenges regarding the implementation of the IQMS.
Sterling (2003:27) states that some strategies fail because not enough resources
were allocated to successfully implement them. The importance of resources was
also mentioned earlier in the study conducted by Okumus (2001:328). Action
planning and budgeting are among the oldest management tools and yet they remain
effective for ensuring that implementation occurs and that tactics align with strategy.
Under system, the roles of communication will be discussed. Policies and procedures
as well as knowledge management forms part of an organisations systems.
2.5.3.1 Communication
Peng and Littlejohn (2001:360) states that despite an increased academic interest in
organisational communication and in strategy implementation, current studies in both
fields have paid scant attention to the roles of organisational communication in the
process of strategy implementation and often fail to address fully issues relating to
organisational communication in diverse, dynamic and complex contemporary
organisations. This view is supported by Raps (2005:141) where he states that even
though studies point out that communication is a key success factor within strategy
implementation, communicating with employees concerning issues related to the
strategy implementation is often delayed until the changes have already crystallised.
According to a study conducted by Peng and Litteljohn (2001:361) it was found that,
structural arrangements have significant impact on organisational communication in
the process of strategy implementation. Structural arrangements may facilitate
communication on the one hand, and create barriers for communication on the other.
It is important to note that structural arrangements do not solely determine
communications and its effectiveness. Another finding was that organisational
communications played an important role in training, knowledge distribution and
learning in the process of strategy implementation. Communicating is not organising,
as organising involves structure arrangements, resource allocation and many other
activities. Communication is embedded in the process of organising, affecting the
effectiveness and efficiency of these processes. One can conclude that if the
communication process is not effective, it can result in the strategy not being
implemented. How effective is the communication process within the Mpumalanga
DoE as well as between the provincial office, regional office and the various schools?
Do the implementers understand what the IQMS is about and how to implement it?
These questions form part of the investigation into the implementation of the IQMS of
the Mpumalanga DoE in the Nkangala region.
2.5.3.2 Policies
Pearce and Robinson (2007:303) define policies “as directives designed to guide the
thinking, decisions, and actions for managers and their subordinates in implementing
the organisations strategy”. In the case of this research report, the policy relates to
the IQMS. Policies attempt to increase managerial effectiveness by standardising
many routine decisions and clarifying the discretion managers and subordinates can
exercise in implementing functional tactics.
According to Pearce and Robison (2007:304) policies communicate guidelines to
decisions in several ways. It establishes indirect control over dependent action by
clearly stating how things must be done. It also promotes the uniform handling of
similar activities. Policies can ensure quicker decisions by standardising answers to
previously answered questions which can reduce uncertainty and can also offer
predetermined answers to routine problems. Basic aspects of organisational
behaviour can be institutionalised through policies.
Thompson and Martin (2005:758) state that policies must be related to strategic
objectives and the implementation thereof, but at the same time they should not
restrict managers to the extent that they are unable to make incremental and
adaptive changes when necessary. Policies can be either advisory or mandatory
(rules).
Grobler and Mestry (2007) state that the management and governance of schools in
South Africa is based on the South African Schools Act as well as at least 16 other
legislative Acts. Mandates give rise to policies that provides standardised
procedures. They (ibid) further state that “management via mandates is not
congruent with the modern approaches such as teamwork characterised by co-
operation and collaboration. The climate that is needed to encourage involvement,
high performance, and commitment will not be cultivated via mandates using top-
down approaches to implement performance measurement”.
2.5.3.3 Knowledge Management
Knowledge provides value to an organisation by offering an improved environment
for new developments and use of experience in handling problems. Knowledge
management entails elicitation, acquisition, structuring, representation, access, use,
execution, transfer and distribution of knowledge to generate greater profits and add
enhanced value. Profits in this case will be “benefits”. According to Shankar, Singh,
Gupta and Narain (2003:190), knowledge management is the process of
identification and leveraging of organisational knowledge assets to deliver business
advantages to the organisation and its customers. Three entities relating to the
understanding of knowledge are commonly used – data, information and knowledge.
Organisations are recognising the value of employing knowledge management
strategies that focus on the importance of employee skills and talents. Dess, Lumpkin
and Taylor (2005:140) state “organisations that are knowledge-intensive need to
have strategies in place for capturing and retaining as much knowledge as possible”.
What is the Mpumalanga DoE doing with regards to knowledge management, and
more specifically, what are the various schools doing with regards to managing the
existing knowledge within their schools?
The “hard” elements according to the McKinsey 7-S Framework were discussed
above. The “soft” elements will be discussed in the section below.
2.5.4 Shared values
When the McKinsey 7-S Framework was originally developed, shared values was
called “super-ordinate goals”. These are the core values of the organisation that are
evidenced in the corporate culture and the general work ethic. The values of the
Mpumalanga DoE were mentioned earlier in this report.
The aspect of organisational culture is of critical importance in the process of
implementing strategy. According to Van den Berg and Wilderom (2004:570)
organisational culture forms the glue that holds the organisation together and
stimulates employees to commit to the organisation and to perform. Drennan
(1992:1) defines organisational culture as “how things are done around here.” Schein
(1985) defines culture as “the deeper level of basic assumptions and beliefs that are
shared by members of an organisation, that operate unconsciously, and that define in
a basic ‘taken for granted’ fashion an organisations view of it and its environment”.
Culture according to Pearce and Robinson (2003:368) implies the set of important
assumptions that members of an organisation share in common. Every organisation
has its own culture – an intangible yet ever-present theme that provides meaning,
direction, and the basis for action. They explain that managers find it difficult to think
through the relationship between an organisations culture and the critical factors on
which the strategy depends. Consequently, managing the strategy-culture
relationship requires sensitivity to the interaction between changes crucial to
implementation of the intended strategy and the “fit” between those changes and the
organisation’s culture.
Culture, as stated by Thompson and Martin (2005:333), is reflected in the way in
which people within the organisation do their work, set objectives and allocate and
manage resources to achieve the objectives. They state, “culture is at the heart of all
strategy creation and implementation”.
The organisational leader plays a critical role in the developing, sustaining, and
changing of organisational culture. According to Pearce and Robinson (2007:367)
leaders shape organisational culture through their passion for the organisation and
the selection/development of talented managers to be future leaders. In the case of
the various schools, the manager is the principal together with the SMT that has to
provide the leadership for the school and its staff. The role of the leader will be
discussed further under the concept of “Style” according to the McKinsey 7-S
Framework.
According to Raps (2005:143) teamwork plays an important role within the process of
strategy implementation. There are various characteristics associated to teamwork.
According to Maddux (1996:10) members recognise their interdependence and feel a
sense of ownership for their jobs and unit because they are committed to goals they
have helped to establish. Members work in a climate of trust and are encouraged to
express ideas, opinions, disagreement and feelings openly; they practice open and
honest communication. As stated earlier, teamwork is characterised by co-operation
and collaboration. “A nationally mandated set of superficial performance
measurement criteria designed by external role players to facilitate administrative
control can only serve to enhance simulated compliance” (Hargreaves, 1994).
Peterson (1994) argues that working together is fostered by collaborative school
cultures where underlying norms, values, beliefs and assumptions reinforce and
support high levels of teamwork and dialogue about problems of practice.
2.5.5 Style
Under the concept of style, the framework refers to the style of leadership.
Organisational leadership is a key factor in the implementation of any strategy.
Successful leaders don’t start out asking, “What do I want to do?” They ask, “What
needs to be done?” According to De Vries (1996) “the most successful strategic
leaders perform two key roles, a charismatic role and an architectural one”. The
charismatic role involves galvanising commitment and support for a vision and
empowering employees. The architectural role involves building an appropriate
organisational structure, together with a system for controlling and rewarding.
Pearce and Robinson (2007:259) define organisational leadership as the processes
and practices by key executives of guiding and shepherding people in an
organisation toward a vision over time and developing that organisation’s future
leadership and organisational culture. They further state that the leadership
challenge is to galvanise commitment among people, to embrace change and
implement strategies to ensure that the organisation succeeds in a vastly different
future. How would they do this? According to Pearce and Robinson (2007:361) the
way to galvanise commitment to embrace change is through three interrelated
activities. Firstly by clarifying the strategic intent, secondly by building and
organisation and lastly shaping the organisations culture.
Strategic intent implies a clear sense of where leaders want to lead the organisation,
the vision, and also what results they expect to achieve. Building an organisation
refers to shaping and refining the organisational structure and making it function
effectively to accomplish the strategic intent. This implies change and with change
comes resistance. This is also where culture plays an important role.
Pearce and Robinson (2007:365) explain that there are three good ways leaders go
about building an organisation. Firstly is education and leadership development. It
boils down to familiarising future leaders with the skills that are important to the
organisation and to develop exceptional leaders among the managers you employ.
Secondly, they refer to principles which are the fundamental personal standards that
guide your sense of honesty, integrity and ethical behaviour. Lastly is perseverance,
which is the capacity to see a commitment through to completion long after most
people would have stopped trying. It is not just about what leaders do, it is also about
who they are. According to Dess et al. (2005:380) there has been a huge amount of
literature on the successful traits of leaders. These traits can be grouped into three
sets of capabilities which are purely technical skills; cognitive abilities and emotional
intelligence (such as the ability to work with others and a passion for work). Grobler
and Mestry (2007:9) state that “school managers were not involved in the design of
the IQMS and that after minimal training by regional officials who have little
knowledge of performance measurement, school principals are expected to
implement the system successfully”.
Gratton (2006) states that in many organisations people do not feel inspired,
engaged or free to voice their opinions. How free are educators (including principals)
to “voice their opinion”? Grobler and Mestry (2007:27) are of the opinion that “the
climate that is needed to encourage involvement, high performance and commitment
will not be cultivated via mandates using top-down approaches to implement
performance measurement” This could lead to “unhappy and de-motivated” staff.
When staff are de-motivated, commitment drops and it can lead to the failure of the
intended strategy.
5.3.6 Staff
This includes both the people who do the work and the human resource systems that
allow and encourage work to be done, including performance appraisals, training,
motivation and morale. According to Galbraith and Kazanjian in Peng and Littlejohn
(2001:362), effectiveness of strategy implementation is in part, affected by the quality
of people involved in the process. It refers to the skills, attitudes, capabilities,
experiences and other characteristics of people required by a specific task or
position. Raps (2005:143) states that human resources represent a valuable
intangible asset and that the latest research indicates that human resources are
progressively becoming the key success factor within strategy implementation.
The lifeblood of any organisation is its people and the level of performance is in part
influenced by their attitude. However, what influences attitude? One can say that
motivation plays a crucial role. Motivation also plays a role in strategy
implementation. Although the importance of motivational theories is acknowledged, a
discussion of these theories is beyond the scope of this study. Motivation affects a
person’s level of performance and will be discussed next.
According to Gratton (2006) there are profound differences between organisations in
both the behaviours, skills and attitudes of their employees and in the rigour and
appropriateness of people policies and practices, and that these differences have a
significant impact on the long-term health of the organisation. She further states that
organisational strategies can only be realised through people. Gratton (2000) came
up with the concept of a “living strategy”. She recognises that organisations exist not
for the personal development of their employees, but to perform organisational tasks
and deliver on organisational goals. The essence of her “living strategy” is the
bridging of these two: showing how organisations that recognise that they are social
entities which embody the humanity of their individual members can follow a
systematic management process to enhance organisational performance.
Performance Management is one of the key tools related to the IQMS.
Armstrong and Murlis (1994:205) said the following regarding performance
management: “The concept of performance management has been one of the most
important and positive developments in the sphere of reward management.
Performance management emerged as a key business process and a major lever for
achieving culture change in the early 1990’s when it became increasingly evident that
it could play an important part in an integrated system of human resource
management as one of a number of mutually reinforcing processes.”
Performance evaluation is also discussed under the concept of “staff”. According to
Armstrong and Murlis (1994:26) historically the aspect of performance management
was known as performance appraisals, which had the following three functions: to
provide feedback to employees regarding performance; to serve as basis for
changing behaviour towards more effective working habits; and to provide managers
with data with which they may judge future assignments and remuneration. To probe
the perceptions of respondents with respect to the historical functions of performance
appraisals forms part of the investigation into the implementation of the IQMS by the
Mpumalanga DoE. One of the main purposes of the IQMS is to evaluate the
educator’s performance for salary progression, grade progression, affirmation of
appointments and rewards and incentives.
The philosophy of performance management as provided by Armstrong and Murlis
(1994:208) states that it is a process or set of processes for establishing shared
understanding about what is to be achieved, and of managing and developing people
in a way which increases the probability that it will be achieved in the short and
longer term.
Spangenberg (1994:14) sees a typical performance management system as
consisting of four stages namely: performance planning where goals as set;
managing the performance through activities such as coaching; reviewing the
performance formally and informally and then rewarding the performance. Examining
the IQMS, one can see that in principle, these four stages were taken into
consideration when designed.
He (ibid) also stated that the management of performance is an ongoing process.
There are three levels i.e. organisational, processes and team/employee. This means
that goals are set and measured, resources are allocated, feedback and coaching is
provided and effective co-ordination is thus achieved.
Pearce and Robinson (1991:352) make the following statement regarding reward
systems: “The execution of strategy ultimately depends on individual organisational
members, particularly key managers. In addition, motivating and rewarding good
performance by individuals and organisational units are key ingredients in effective
strategy implementation. If strategy accomplishment is a top priority, then the reward
system must be clearly and tightly linked to strategic performance.”
Armstrong and Murlis (1994:15) state that reward management can contribute
towards achievement of organisational performance through performance
improvement where reward processes can drive and support desired behaviour.
Each school is allocated a performance bonus; however, each school uses a different
formula to distribute this bonus. It can lead to demoralisation or to improved
performance in some staff members.
One of the most important components is the mechanism by which performance is
measured, evaluated and rewarded. Lawler (1990) argues that when pay is tied to
performance, it motivates higher performance. The IQMS clearly states that
evaluation of performance is one way to justify a pay progression. The rationale for
performance-based reward systems is that something extra is needed to motivate
employees to higher performance because salaries do little more than motivate an
employee to show up at work and put in the required hours. This logic does not
necessarily apply to individual schools as high performance does not necessarily
lead to high bonuses.
According to Tomlinson (1992:1), performance related pay is about an individualised
system of payment linking all or part of the reward of each individual employee to his
or her performance. He (ibid) further states that the measurement of performance
against targets, which can be financial, task-based or quality-based in the wider
world, is more suitable for education if targets are carefully selected. Also, that
performance-related pay is part of a necessary change to school and college culture,
if standards are to be raised significantly without massive and possibly wasteful input
of new sources.
Rycroft (1989) said “The greatest benefits of individual performance pay are that it
enables the organisation to indicate to its employees what its priorities are, by
weighing rewards for achievement in those areas. From an individual’s point of view
performance pay creates a direct link between their daily labours and the rewards
they receive. It allows them to identify areas where they are underperforming”.
According to the Local Authorities Conditions of Service Advisory Board (LACSAB)
Research Paper in Tomlinson (1992:16), performance related pay served a number
of management purposes: employee motivation, improved management and
communication, establishing equity in employee rewards, a solution to recruitment
and retention problems, and fostering the performance culture. The assessment of
performance must be rigorous. Le Métais in Tomlinson (1992:24) states that in many
European countries, teachers are subject to the regulations governing public
servants and are paid on special public service scales or on specific points of the
public service salary spine. A teacher’s salary in all the countries studied is
composed of three elements:
• The salary scale appropriate to the teacher’s qualifications of post;
• The incremental point to which s/he has progresses by virtue of seniority or
performance; and
• Any supplementary payments to which s/he is entitled. This includes holiday
and annual bonus, geographical allowances, family allowances, general
income supplements and long service allowances.
Heywood in Tomlinson (1992:149) stated that “the prime purpose of an education
service appraisal scheme must be to enhance and develop the professional skills of
the people in the service”. The biggest resource in education is people. Reflecting on
the IQMS, this aspect is clearly contained under Developmental Appraisals.
5.3.7 Skills
Kreitner and Kinicki (2004:205) define skills as the specific capacity to manipulate
objects. “Ability” is defined as a stable characteristic responsible for a person’s
maximum physical or mental performance. Skills and abilities are also referred to as
competencies. Some of the most desirable competencies are oral communication,
tolerance, problem solving, adaptability, initiative, decisiveness and resilience. For
Thompson and Richardson (1996) it is necessary to first evaluate which
competencies are critical for strategic success and secondly to ensure that the
organisation possesses these competencies at an appropriate level.
According to Kreitner and Kinicki performance depends on the right combination of
effort, ability and skill. Again, the issue of skill development is addressed in the IQMS.
The SIP specifically addresses the issue of Personal Growth Plans (PGP’s) and
address growth at four “levels” where these are applicable. The four levels are as
follows: areas in need of improvement about which the educator is in full control;
areas for which someone else or the school is able to provide guidance; areas where
the Department should provide in-service training programmes and areas where the
educator is un- or under qualified or needs re-skilling (http://www.elrc.co.za).
The various strategy implementation levers have been discussed in this section. To
measure the effective implementation of the IQMS, a questionnaire was handed out
that was structured around the implementation levers of strategy. The findings are
discussed in Chapter 5. The next section will discuss possible aids to assist in
strategy implementation.
2.6 POTENTIAL AIDS IN STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
A number of possible pitfalls have been discussed in section 2.4.1. Attention should
also be given to what ensures successful strategy implementation. In order to
effectively manage such a wide-ranging organisational “activity”, many related
management frameworks have been developed in recent years. Some of these
emanate from the total quality management (TQM) movement. These tools have not
been included in the questionnaire to probe the perception of educators regarding the
implementation of the IQMS. It is included in this report merely to provide insight into
existing tools to assist in strategy implementation.
2.6.1 Total quality management (TQM)
Price and Newson (2003) argue that “there has been considerable overlap between
the approaches of quality management and strategic management”. Hyde (1992)
illustrated this when he stated that total quality management (TQM) included
amongst other, strategic planning. Total Quality Management is a framework that an
organisation can choose with which to implement a strategy (CQI or Quality
Improvement). A benefit of TQM is that it becomes a way of life; it is long term. It
becomes engrained in the culture of the organisation as all systems and processes
are continuously improved. According to Kanji and Asher (1996:1) TQM has four
principles and eight core concepts. The table below indicates the principles and the
core concepts. Systems, standards and technology themselves will not provide
quality. The role of people is extremely important.
Table 2.2: Principles and concepts of Total Quality Management
Principles Core Concepts
Delight the customer Customer satisfaction
Internal customers are real
Management by fact All work is process
Measurement
People-based management Teamwork
People make quality
Continuous improvement Continuous improvement cycle
Prevention
(Source adapted from: Kanji, G.K. & Asher, M. 1996. 100 Methods for Total Quality Management. Sage Publications: London. p.1)
James (1996:46) describes TQM as the management philosophy that seeks
continuous improvement in the quality of performance of all processes, products and
or/services of an organisation through a practical orientation, devising a process that
visibly illustrates their commitment to growth and even organisational survival. The
IQMS is in fact trying to ensure organisational survival. James (1996:8) sees the total
quality management process as follows:
Figure 2.3: Total quality management process
(Source adapted from: James, P.T.J. 1996. Total Quality Management: an introductory text. Prentice Hall: UK. p.8)
Part 3
Quality Management – the Basics
TQM Theory
Integrated Quality Management – the future
Planning Organising Leading Controlling Staffing
The five functions of Quality Management
Quality Management Concepts
TQM Writers The Three Views of Quality
Part 2
Part 1
Part 4
The model as depicted in figure 2.4 below, illustrates the areas that are considered
necessary for the constituent parts of TQM. The mix of such elements is dependant
upon the circumstances facing an organisation, both internal and external. This
relates back to the strategic management process as defined by Pearce and
Robinson mentioned in section 2.2.
Figure 2.4: Constituent part of Total Quality Management
(Source adapted from: James, P.T.J. 1996. Total Quality Management: an
introductory text. Prentice Hall: UK. p. 46)
Reflecting on the constituent parts of TQM, one can see how this overlaps with the
strategy implementation levers of the McKinsey 7-S Framework. This is depicted in
the table below compiled by the researcher to show the similarities.
Table 2.3 Comparison of constituent parts of TQM and implementation levers
TQM McKinsey 7-S Framework
Philosophy Strategy
Management responsibility Style
TQM processes Systems
Culture Shared values
Quality tools Systems
Communications Systems and structure
Training and Education Skills
Customers Staff
Quality System
Philosophy
TQM process
Customers
Management Responsibility
Training and Education
Communications
Quality tools
Culture T
Q M
Kanji and Asher (1996:3) states that whether you supply products or services, the
people you service internally are as real as your external customers and that they
also require speed, efficiency or accurate measurement. They (ibid) state that
“bringing people together in teams, with the common goal of quality improvement,
aids communication between departmental activities. Teamwork slowly breaks down
the communication barriers and acts as a platform for change”.
James (1996:48) is of the opinion that TQM is deemed to require five system
elements which are: technology, processes, structure, people and task. Processes
includes managerial, administrative and production processes. According to the
IQMS, the SMT and SDT must ensure that all staff members are trained on the
procedures and processes of the IQMS. Technology includes items, components or
articles necessary for the task. Structure includes individual responsibility, formal
segmentation and formal and informal communication channels. People include
education and training, culture change etc. One of the purposes of the IQMS is to
provide support for continued growth. Lastly task includes quality issues, job
functions etc. It is clear that TQM is closely linked to the various strategy
implementation levers.
James (1996:49) states that some issues seem more critical than others for the
successful implementation of TQM. The first issue relates to the organisation and the
need for TQM to be adopted organisation-wide is seen as paramount. The second
issue refers to management commitment. The third issue is culture change; to
change to one which values teamwork and flexibility is crucial. The concept of
prevention is central to TQM; it seeks to ensure that failures will not occur. TQM can
be implemented by putting into practice suitable TQM methods. Adopting the right
kind of method is one of the most important jobs of senior management.
Implementing TQM starts by setting up teams to solve particular problems. TQM
deals with quality culture which is all about culture change based on a desire to
satisfy the customer and eliminate existing problems. Education and training are key
factors in TQM.
According to Kanji and Asher (1996:8) TQM is a process and the problem solving
process is a continuous cycle of opening your mind to a wide range of possible
solutions and then deciding on the most feasible option. Resistance to TQM is partly
due to unfamiliarity with the new approach and how it will affect the staff in their jobs.
In the fourth International Conference on TQM, Cook (1991) states that Tom Peters
said “most TQM programmes fail because they have system without passion or
passion without system”. It means that introducing the quality management system,
without thinking about its consequences on people, will lead to failure (James,
1996:55). According to Grobler and Mestry (2007:29) the IQMS was very poorly
advocated.
According to James (1996:57), quality in education has meant quality of conformance
to design standards – curriculum standards – and the metrics developed has
reflected this. Quality of design should take greater importance than quality of
conformance of delivery of a course. Curtis (1989) states that TQM means the
dependence on the partnership between management responsibility and employee
commitment. For education it means that no matter what the strategic direction in
which top management want to take the institution, it cannot be accomplished by
them.
Since TQM requires a high investment in education and training, what better
organisation to do it than an education institution? If it was that easy, all educational
institutions would have successfully implemented TQM programmes, but they have
not. The first reason being that educational institutions have not been managed in a
total quality way. They have to learn how to learn about quality and its implications.
Secondly, how can one effectively evaluate performance in an educational
institution?
In this section, TQM has been discussed as a tool assisting in strategy
implementation. A second tool, the Balanced Scorecard will be discussed next.
2.6.2 Balanced Scorecard
Atkinson (2006) states that it has been suggested that “new” performance
management frameworks like the Balanced Scorecard can, by forming the basis of
strategic control systems and providing a vital link between strategy and action,
assist organisations to achieve effective strategic implementation. Pearce and
Robinson (2007:398) defines the Balanced Scorecard as a control system used by
management that enables the organisation to clarify its strategies, translate these
strategies into action and provide quantitative feedback as to whether the strategy is
creating value, satisfying its customers, generating financial reward and leveraging
core competencies.
Kaplan and Norton (1996b:85) claims that the Balanced Scorecard “. . . provides a
framework for managing the implementation of strategy while also allowing the
strategy itself to evolve in response to changes in the organisation’s environment.”
The scorecard approach encourages the establishment of co-ordinated scorecards at
every level of an organisation which, when implemented properly, engage middle
managers. There is also evidence of the efficacy of the Balanced Scorecard
framework for supporting strategy implementation by linking strategy to operations
such that it is proposed that the Balanced Scorecard addresses many of the
problems associated with strategy implementation.
The Balanced Scorecard of Kaplan and Norton (2004:7) have various elements. The
first element refers to financial performance. The second element refers to the
customer perspective and defines the value proposition for the targeted customer
segment. The third element refers to internal processes created and delivers the
value proposition for customers. The last element refers to learning and growth and
describes how the people, technology and organisation climate combine to realise
the strategy. Pearce and Robinson (2007:398) states that the Balanced Scorecard
methodology adapts the TQM ideas of customer-defined quality, continuous
improvement, employee empowerment and feedback into an expanded methodology
that includes financial data and results.
Kaplan and Norton (2005:8) state that the Balanced Scorecard, while initially
developed to improve performance management, is now being used as a powerful
tool for rapid and effective strategy implementation. The Balanced Scorecard was
initially proposed to improve the measurement of organisations intangible assets.
Kaplan and Norton (2004:9) claim the Balanced Scorecard can also be used as a
powerful tool for describing and implementing an organisations strategy. “The
strategy map provides the missing link between strategy formulation and strategy
execution” (Kaplan & Norton, 2004:10).
Figure 2.5: Strategy maps: the simple model of value creation
(Source adapted from: Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. 2004.Strategy Maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. p.8)
According to Kaplan and Norton (2004:424) the strategy map was successfully used
by the Fulton County School System (FCSS) in Atlanta, United States of America.
The FCSS encompasses seventy-seven public schools. The Balanced Scorecard
provided a strategic framework and it organised objectives and performance
measures in five categories: student achievement, stakeholders, instructional and
administrative processes, staff learning and growth, and financial performance. The
FCSS initiated the Balanced Scorecard programme in 1999 and by the end of 2001,
all FCSS schools were using the Balanced Scorecard. Below is the strategy map
used by FCSS.
The Mission
Financial Perspective Customer Perspective
“If we succeed, how will we look to our taxpayers?”
“To achieve our vision, how must we look to our customers?”
Internal Perspective
“To satisfy our customers, which business processes must we excel at?”
Learning and Growth Perspective
“To achieve our vision, how must our organisation learn and improve”
Public Sector Organisations
Figure 2.6: Strategy map of FCSS
(Source adapted from: Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. 2004.Strategy Maps:
Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business
School Publishing. p.425)
In 2001, the FCSS Board approved a pay-for-performance plan for the
superintendent and school district cabinet members based on the achievement of
targets. By the end of 2003 more gains were noted. It included amongst others the
following:
• The percentage of students meeting and-or exceeding state level reading and
math performance expectations had typically increased by about 5 percentage
points.
• High school students earning college credit prior to graduation increased from
10 percent to 16 percent.
• Volunteer hours increased by more than 87,000; 98,000 volunteers now were
supporting FCSS schools.
Students master
Curriculum
Students are nationally
competitive
School climate is safe and enriching
Parents are involved and satisfied
Community is involved and has
positive perception
Staff is competent
Students have nutritious meals
Resources are in place for the
first day of school
Facilities are safe and well maintained
Transportation is safe and
efficient
Instruction is effective
Teachers and other employees
are satisfied
Sound Fiscal Management
Student Achievement
Customer and Stakeholder involvement
and satisfaction
Efficient and effective
instructional and
administrative processes
Staff learn ing and growth
Fiscal Performance
• 82 percent of parents expressed satisfaction with their children’s schools.
• The first day of school began with textbooks, equipment, and supplies in place
at all schools.
According to Kaplan and Norton (2004) successful adopters followed five
management principles to become “strategy focused”. The first principle relates to
translating strategy into operational terms, followed by aligning the organisation to
the strategy. The third principle entails that strategy becomes everyone’s everyday
job. Strategy is also a continual process. The last principle involves the mobilisation
of change through executive leadership.
James (1996:102) states that one of the most important stages in the quality planning
process is the implementation stage. It includes education and training; participation,
culture; processes, empowerment, organisational and reward structures and
consideration of the “what” and “how” of implementation.
Bourne, Neely, Mills and Platts (2003) discuss the implementation issues associated
with the Balanced Scorecard and similar frameworks. They state that there is little
research into their effectiveness and identified three key factors that compelled
progress towards successful implementation; top management commitment, the
sense that it was worth the effort and good facilitation. In addition they found the
differentiating factors between success and failures were:
• purpose – clear vision for moving the organisation forward;
• structure – which related to parent subsidiary relationship which had negative
impacts which were not fully understood; and
• culture – it was found that having a paternalistic culture was beneficial to
successful implementation.
Lynch and Cross (1995) identified three criteria that must be met by performance
management systems if they are to effectively mediate between an organisation’s
strategy and its day-to-day activities. These “necessary” conditions comprise that the
system must explicitly link operational targets to strategic goals; it must integrate
financial and non-financial performance information; and the system should focus
business activities on meeting customer requirements.
Galpin (1997:16) raises the question of what is the key to successful strategy
implementation. He came up with a process he calls “Making Strategy Work Model”:
realigning an organisations “influence systems” in order to change individual and
organisational behaviours. Previously, management tried to control people’s actions
through stringent rules and policies or by issuing edicts. The reality is that people are
not actually under anyone’s direct control, they are only influenced by the makeup of
their work environment. His model is depicted in figure 2.7.
According to Galpin (ibid) the model is based on collective management thought
about corporate strategy. He reached the following conclusions:
• Design and planning is only the beginning, not the deliverable.
• People are the key bridge between an organisation’s strategy and its results.
• Management does not have direct control over people’s actions, they only
have influence. People must be given incentives to implement the strategy.
Beyond the revised pay programs, incentives take the form of the twelve
influence systems (box 2 in figure 2.7).
• Telling people to change what they do is not enough.
• Organisational influence systems are systemic in that they interact with one
another to create individual and organisational behaviours.
• Management cannot wait until the planning process is complete to begin
implementation.
Galpin (1997:20) states that motivating management and employee behaviour and
competencies through the twelve influence systems leads to strategy implementation
and measurable desired business results.
Figure 2.7: Making strategy work model
(Source adapted from: Galpin, T.J. 1997. Making strategy work: building sustainable growth capability. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco. p.17)
2.7 CONCLUSION
Based on the previous discussion, the success of any strategy is in how it is
implemented. How the strategy was formulated will have and impact on the
implementation thereof. The importance of “fit” between the strategies and how the
organisation is organised and managed was highlighted. The various implementation
levers identified and discussed were strategy, structure, systems, shared values,
style, staff and skills. According to Okumus the key variables are in order of priority
as follows: structure; people; strategy formulation, resource allocation and
communication; organisational culture and then operational planning. Some of the
challenges related to strategy implementation is a lack of understanding of how to
implement the strategy; not understanding the strategy; individuals not being clear
about their roles and responsibilities; and lack of feedback.
Define/Clarify the Business Strategy
• New markets • Operating
changes • New products • Enhanced
technology • Other
Create necessary competencies and behaviours
• Individual • Organisational
Realisations of Business Strategies and results
• Growth • Profitability • Market share
Management has direct control
Management has no direct control – only influence
1
2
3 4
Realign the organisational influence systems
• Goals and measures
• Rewards and recognition
• Communications • Training and
development • Organisational
structure • Senior Leadership • Rules and polices • Physical
environment • Staffing, selection,
and succession. • Information systems
and knowledge sharing
• Operational/process change
• Ceremonies and events
Evaluate and refine
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In Chapter 2 the researcher gave background on strategy implementation and how it
relates to the Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS) as mandated to be
implemented in South African schools. It was concluded in Chapter 2 that to
successfully implement any strategy, the various implementation levers must be
considered. According to the McKinsey 7-S Framework, shared values lies at the
“heart” of strategy implementation. How the individual perceives the intended strategy
and the culture will affect “how things are done”. It was also stated that the vision and
how it was crafted and communicated plays an important role in the implementation
thereof.
In this chapter the research methodology and research procedures used to conduct
the research will be discussed.
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
Cooper and Schindler (2001:75) state that the research design can be viewed as the
“blueprint” of the research project that precedes the actual research process. Mouton
(1996:107) describes research design as a route planner. He stated that it is a set of
guidelines and instructions on how to reach the goal that the researcher has set. The
theoretical framework of this study is situated within the strategic management
process. In an attempt to address these issues, several sources were consulted,
including journal articles and textbooks. The design of this research project is an
empirical design. Data for this research project was collected by means of
questionnaires. The questionnaires were distributed to the sample that will be
requested to complete the questionnaire and return it to the researcher. The
questionnaire was structured around the implementation levers as identified in the
McKinsey 7-S Framework. The sample is a stratified sample and contained
principals, educators and administrative staff from the various schools in the
Nkangala district as well as officials in the provincial office.
3.3 RESEARCH POPULATION
A population, as described by Cooper and Schindler (2001:163) is the total collection
of elements about which one wishes to make some inferences. The population in this
case refers to the staff at the regional office and educators in the various schools of
Mpumalanga Department of Education. There are 11 376 educators and 719 public
schools in the Nkangala region. (D of N E, 2005b). According to Cooper and
Schindler (2002:179) a population element is a subject on which the measurement is
being taken, it is the unit of study.
3.4 SAMPLE
According to Cooper and Schindler (2001:179), the basic idea of sampling is that by
selecting some of the elements in a population one can draw conclusions about the
entire population. The population element is the subject on which the measurement
is being taken.
3.4.1 Sampling Methodology
This section will describe the sampling methodology that was used to conduct the
research. A sample is a carefully selected representation of the targeted population
(Groebner, Shannon, Fry and Smith 2005:13) The basic idea of sampling is that by
selecting some of the elements in a population one can draw conclusions about the
entire population (Cooper and Schindler: 2001:179). The rationale for sampling is
the availability of the population elements and lower costs. In addition, by using a
sample in this research there will be a greater speed of data collection.
This research project used stratified, non-probability sampling which is arbitrary (non-
random) and subjective. This implies that each member did not have a known
nonzero chance of being included. The researcher opted for non-probability sampling
because of convenience. The researcher does acknowledge the limitations of the
reliability of this sampling method. However, it remains a useful procedure that will
meet the requirements of this research project.
Greater opportunities occur for bias to enter the sample selection procedure and to
distort the research findings. Convenient samples were used as it was the easiest
and financially most feasible method to conduct this research.
For the purpose of this research project, the sample consisted of administrative staff
in the regional offices as well as principals and educators from the various schools
within the Nkangala district. The specific respondents had been selected by the
Mpumalanga Department of Education in September 2006 to attend a management
training programme. A total of 215 persons were selected to undergo this
management training programme. The group consisted of regional officials,
principals, and heads of departments and educators, all of whom were either
responsible for or affected by the IQMS. The criteria for selection were based on the
principle that persons were already in possession of an NQF level 6 qualification.
According to the Departments Skills development plan for 2006, the three specific
regions targeted for this training was Nkangala, Ehlanzeni and Gert Sibande. From
there, the Nkangala group was targeted as the sample for this study. The Nkangala
group consisted of 81 people.
There is little agreement among authors concerning how large a sample should be,
but the recommendation is normally, the bigger the better. In small samples, like in
this research study, the correlation coefficients among the variables are less reliable,
tending to vary from sample to sample. Tabachnick and Fidell in Pallant (2001:153)
states that if there are “strong, reliable correlations and a few, distinct factors a
smaller sample size is adequate
3.4.2 Sample size
The size of the intended sample was eighty one population elements. Seventy eight
questionnaires were returned. This indicates a return rate of 96.3% which is good.
3.5 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
The measuring instrument that was used for this study was a questionnaire.
According to Cooper and Schindler (2001), self-administered questionnaires are used
in intercept studies without interviewer assistance. Questionnaire based research
elicit information from a limited number of individuals who are presumed to have the
information sought. Questionnaires are typically less costly than personal interviews.
This makes it possible to draw large samples and to distribute the questionnaire
widely, which in itself makes the data more representative and generalisable. The
questionnaires also ensure more anonymity and are perceived as more impersonal
which enhances the chances of obtaining responses that are more truthful.
A weakness is non-response error as one does not know how those who answer
differ from those who do not answer. In addition, one cannot probe deeply into
questions due to the impersonality of questionnaires.
The objective of the questionnaires was to establish the perception and thoughts of
employees in the Mpumalanga Department of Education in the Nkangala region on
the implementation efforts regarding the IQMS. Questions asked had to be rated on a
5-point Likert scale. In comparison with personal interviews, questionnaires involve
substantially lower costs. Accessibility to the targeted respondents was another
reason for this data collection method.
The questionnaire was compiled around the McKinsey 7-S Frameworks and covered
the following specific areas:
• organisational strategy;
• organisational structure;
• organisational systems;
• shared values;
• organisational skills;
• leadership style; and
• staff.
Each of these areas consisted of various questions. Respondents had to choose
between alternatives provided in the Likert scale. According to Cooper and Schindler
(2001:234), the Likert scale is the most frequently used variation of the summated
rating. Summated scales consist of statements that express either a favourable or
unfavourable attitude towards the object of interest. Likert scales according to Cooper
and Schindler (2001:253) help to compare one person’s score with a distribution of
scores from a well-defined sample group. The respondent is asked to agree or
disagree with each statement. One of the advantages of a Likert type scale is that it
is relatively easy to construct.
Only one method of data collection was used, namely self administered
questionnaires handed out to delegates.
The questionnaire consisted of two sections namely Section 1 which contained three
categorical (Q1.1-Q1.3) and one equal interval item with four sub-items (Q1.4-Q1.7)
that served as independent variables. Section 2 of the questionnaire consisted of 38
items of an equal interval nature that was grouped under seven (7) headings and that
served as the dependent variables. The 38 items that investigated strategy
implementation with respect to the IQMS were subjected to a factor analytic
procedure to determine the validity of the various constructs as formulated by the
researcher. A discussion of each of the seven latent constructs and factor analytic
procedure that was used to identify these constructs will be followed by a discussion
of the various statistical tests that were performed on the data.
The following precautions were taken to counter the non-response error during
collection:
• The questionnaire was limited to 4 pages, containing 38 questions in total.
• A cover letter introduced the researcher to the respondents and provided clear
instructions to complete the questionnaire.
• The anonymity had no significant effect on the response rate, as respondents
could not be identified.
Annexure 1 shows the layout of the questionnaire together with the covering letter
3.6 DATA COLLECTION
This research consisted of the collection of primary and secondary data. Secondary
data will be data that has been recorded in previous studies. As stated earlier, the
method of primary data collection will be through the use of a questionnaire.
The sample contained officials from the regional office as well as principals and
educators from the various individual schools in the Nkangala district. As mentioned
earlier, the questionnaire was structured around the implementation levers as
identified through the McKinsey 7-S Framework.
The sample was requested to complete the questionnaire. Questionnaires were
handed out to the sample elements on Sunday, 14 October 2007 Middelburg, while
attending a module. The researcher was present during the completion of the
questionnaires. Questionnaires were completed anonymously. In the covering letter,
the respondents were assured of confidentiality and that the results will not be used
for any other purposes apart from this research. No attempt was made to identify the
responses of individual respondents. Permission was obtained from the Mpumalanga
Department of Education for the use of their employees for the study. Once the data
was collected, the researcher captured the responses onto a excel spreadsheet
which was then statistically analysed by STATKON from the University of
Johannesburg. General analytical statistics were conducted by STATKON and the
results will be presented in the next chapter.
3.6 DATA ANALYSIS
The following section will describe the various statistical methods used in the study.
The unit of analysis refers to the type of unit the researcher used when measuring
variables. For the purpose of this research, the unit of analysis can be described as
the “what” of the study, what “object”. Data analysis, according to Cooper and
Schindler (2001:87), usually involves reducing accumulated data to a manageable
size, developing summaries, looking for patterns, and applying statistical techniques.
All the collected data was analysed.
3.6.5 Data preparation
Data preparation included editing, coding and data entry (Cooper and Schindler,
2001:454). Cooper and Schindler (2001:455) state that editing detects errors and
omissions, corrects them when possible, and certifies that minimum data quality
standards have been achieved. Accuracy, consistency, uniform entries, completion
and the arrangement of the questionnaires guarantee successful data analysis.
Coding is when responses are coded through the allocation of numbers that were
grouped into a limited number of categories. Each questionnaire was coded
according to the specific respondent. Variables were coded according to the number
chosen in the 5-point Likert scale. Question 1.1 on the questionnaire gave
respondents the option of indicating the group they represented.
3.6.6 Data entry
Cooper and Schindler (2001:466) explain data entry as converting the information
gathered to a medium for viewing and manipulation. The data gathered for this study
was entered onto a spreadsheet. Cooper and Schindler (2001:471) state that
spreadsheets are a specialised type of database that organise, tabulate and give
simple statistics for easier interpretation.
3.6.7 Measure of spread
Alternatively referred to as the “dispersion” or “variability” which is the variance,
standard deviation, range, inter quartile range and quartile deviation - all of these
terms describe how scores cluster or scatter in a distribution. Variance is the average
of the squared deviation scores from the distribution mean. It is a measure of the
score dispersion about the mean. If all the scores are identical, the variance is “0”.
The greater the dispersion of scores, the greater the variance will be. Both the
variance and the standard deviation were used. Standard deviation summarises how
far away from the average the data values typically are. It improves the
interpretability by removing the variance square and expressing the deviations in their
original units. It also reveals the amount of variability of individuals within the dataset
(Cooper and Schindler, 2001:275).
3.6.8 Statistical tests
Descriptive statistics are defined as “the descriptive tools indicating the
characteristics of location, spread and shape which are assistant tools for the
cleaning of the data, discovering of the problems and to summarise distributions”
(Cooper & Schindler, 2001:474)
The following statistical tests were used to analyse the data:
3.6.4.1 Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of
sampling adequacy
Two statistical measures are often used to assess the factorability of data: Bartlett’s
test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of
sampling adequacy (Pallant, 2001:153). The Bartlett’s test of sphericity should be
significant (p<.05) for the factor analysis to be considered appropriate. The KMO
index ranges from 0 to 1, with 0.6 suggested as the minimum value for a good factor
analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell in Pallant, 2001:153). Kaiser’s criterion can be used to
assist in the decision concerning the number of factors to retain. It states that only
factors with an eigenvalue of 1.0 or more should be retained for further investigation.
The eigenvalue of a factor represents the amount of total variance.
3.6.4.2 Cronbach Alpha
This test tests the degree to which instrument items are homogeneous and reflect the
same underlying constructs (Cooper and Schindler, 2001:216). The assumption is
that the various indicators should correlate positively, but they should not be perfectly
correlated (Ghauri et al: 1997). For reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha should be more than
0.7.
3.6.4.3 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test (KS)
This test assesses the normality of the distribution of scores. A non-significant result
(p > 0.05) indicates normality (Pallant, 2001:58). This test is appropriate when the
data are at least ordinal and the research situation calls for a comparison of an
observed sample distribution with a theoretical distribution. Under these
circumstances the KS one sample test is more powerful than the X² test and can be
used for small samples when the X² test cannot (Pallant, 2001:58). According to
Cooper and Schindler (2001:739) the KS is a test of goodness to fit in which we
specify the cumulative frequency distribution that would occur under the theoretical
distributions and compare that with the observed cumulative frequency distribution
(Significance level α=.05)
3.6.4.4 Kruskal-Wallis
For three or more independent samples, the Kruskal-Wallis test (which can be
regarded as the nonparametric alternative to the regular one factor-analysis of
variance) should be used (Welman, Kruger and Mitchell, 2007:230). Kruskal-Wallis is
a one-way analysis of variance by ranks. It assumes random selection and
independence of samples and an underlying continuous distribution (Cooper and
Schindler, 2001:517). The Kruskal-Wallis Test allows you to compare the scores on
some continuous variable for three or more groups. The main pieces of information
you need from this output are: Chi-Square value, the degrees of freedom (df) and the
significance level (Asymp. Sig). If the significance level is a value less than 0.05 then
you can conclude that there is a statistically significant difference in your continuous
variable across the groups.
3.6.4.5 Mann-Whitney
This technique is used to test for differences between two independent groups on a
continuous measure. This test is the non-parametric alternative to the t-test for
independent samples. It converts the scores on the continuous variable to ranks,
across the two groups. It them evaluates whether the ranks for the two groups differ
significantly. The two values you need to look at are the Z value and the significance
level (Asymp. Sig (2-tailed)). The value must not be less or equal to 0.05, then the
result is not significant thus, there is no statistically significant difference in the scores
obtained by the two groups.
3.6.4.6 T-tests:
The t-test measures any statistical significant difference between the means and
distributions of samples. The null hypothesis tested by these tests is that the means
and distributions of the concerned populations are identical (Welman et al, 2007:
231).
3.6.4.7 Levene’s test
Levene’s test for equality of variances tests whether the variance of scores for groups
are the same. The Sig.level must be greater than 0.05. and therefore not significant.
According to Pallant (2001:205) a significant result (sig.value less than 0.05) would
mean that the variance of the dependant variable across the groups are not equal.
3.6.5 Factor analysis
Factor analysis summarises or reduces the information from a large number of
variables into a much smaller number of factors and has the objective of reducing
variables to a measurable number of variables that belong together or that have
overlapping measurable characteristics. This is a specific computational technique
where the latent relationships of all analysed variables are combined and replaced by
a matrix of inter correlations among several variables in the dependence situation
(Cooper & Schindler, 2001:635).
The first step when performing a factor analysis is to assess the suitability of the data
for factor analysis. There are two main issues to consider namely the sample size
and the strength of the relationship among the variables. When looking at the
correlation matrix, the majority of coefficients must be greater than 0.3. Two statistical
tests are used to assess the factorability of data: Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy. The KMO index ranges
from 0 to 1, with 0.6 as the minimum value for good factor analysis (Pallant,
2001:153). If the KMO value is above 0.6 and the Bartlett’s Test is significant it
means that factor analysis is appropriate.
The second step is determining how many underlying factors there are in the set of
variables. Factor extraction involves determining the smallest number of factors that
can be used to best represent the inter-relations among the set of variables. The
most commonly used approach is principal component analysis. Using Kaiser’s
criterion, one should only use components that have an eigenvalue of 1 or more as
presented in the total variance explained table. The final piece of output provided in
the first step is the Component Matrix. This indicates the loadings of each item. Once
the number of factors has been determined, these factors must be interpreted. To
assist in this process, the factors are rotated (Pallant, 2001:153 - 154).
Furthermore the reliability of scales must be tested. One of the most commonly used
indicators of internal consistency is Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Ideally, it should be
above 0.7 (Pallant, 2001:85). The data was also exposed to tests for normality. The
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used.
During data collection, the researcher collects various kinds of empirical information
or data. The outcome of the process is a set of data or empirical information and the
epistemological criterion is that of reliability. This is a descriptive study. The simplest
descriptive study concerns univariate questions or hypothesis which we ask about, or
state something about, the size, form, distribution, or existence of a variable.
The major test of reliability is the Cronbach Coefficient Alpha, a measure to
determine the extent of internal consistency between, or correlation among, the set
questions. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha is the “numerical index that reflects the linear
relationship between two variables. In the descriptive statistics the value can be a -1
or a +1” (Cooper & Schindler, 2001:578).
3.7 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
According to Cooper and Schindler (2001:210) validity “refers to the extent to which a
test measures what we actually wish to measure” and reliability refers to “the
accuracy and precision of a measurement procedure”. The content validity of a
measuring instrument is the extent to which it provides adequate coverage of the
investigative questions guiding the study. With construct validity, both the theory and
the measuring instrument being used are considered. When measurement of a
variable is done with an instrument, then that instrument must measure what it is
supposed to measure. According to Welman et al. (2007:142), “the construct validity
of a measuring instrument refers to the degree to which it measures the intended
constructs rather than the irrelevant constructs or measurement errors”.
Pallant (2001:85) states that it is important to find scales that are reliable as the main
issue concerns the scale’s internal consistency, in other words the degree to which
the items that make up the scale “hang together”. One of the most commonly used
indicators of internal consistency is Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. Ideally the
coefficient should be above 0.7. With short scales (less than 10 items) it is quite
common to find low Cronbach values. Reliability is concerned with estimates of the
degree to which a measurement is free of random or unstable error.
Mouton (1996) argues that research uses relatively objective methods when
conceptualising, sampling, defining, analysing and collecting data. According to
Mouton (1996) conceptualisation refers to both the clarification and the analysis of
the key concepts in a study. And the way in which one’s research is integrated into
the body of existing theory and research. During the process, a measuring instrument
such as a questionnaire is developed. This instrument constitutes a valid measure of
the key concepts in the research question. The outcome is a measuring instrument
and the predominant epistemological criterion in measurement validity. It has become
customary to distinguish aspects or dimensions of measurement validity such as face
validity, construct validity, criterion and predictive validity. During the process of
selecting or sampling the aim is to get a sample that is as representative as possible
for the target population. Representativeness is the underlying epistemic criterion of a
‘valid’, that is, unbiased sample.
3.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
According to Welman et al. (2007:201) there are four ethical considerations that the
researcher should pay attention to. The first is informed consent where the
researcher should obtain the necessary permission from the respondents after they
were thoroughly and truthfully informed about the purpose of the investigation.
Secondly, the respondents should be assured of their right to privacy.
The respondents should be given assurance that they will be indemnified against any
physical and emotional harm, thus protection from harm. Lastly, researchers should
guard against manipulating respondents or treating them as objects or numbers
rather than individual human beings. They should not use unethical tactics and
techniques.
Other ethical issues include the competence of the researcher in conducting the
research as well as conducting a thorough review of literature to ensure that the
research has not already been conducted. Plagiarism and the falsification of results
are another two ethical issues that must be considered.
Before any data was collected, permission was obtained from the Mpumalanga
Department of Education for the use of their employees in the study. Respondents
were also assured of their anonymity and that they will not be identified at all. Ethical
issues in data analysis and interpretation must take into consideration how the
anonymity of individuals will be protected. Data need to be kept for a reasonable
period of time. The question of ownership of the data once it is collected and
analysed must be addressed.
3.10 CONCLUSION
Chapter 3 addressed the research methodology used for the data analysis. The use
of statistical analysis methods was explained as well as the type of questionnaires
used to collect the data. Factor analysis was used for the data interpretation. Chapter
3 discussed the literature of this process. An outline of the measuring instrument was
presented in this chapter, together with the methodology and research approach
used. The questionnaire was structured to allow for a statistical analysis of the data.
Chapter 4 provides a presentation of the results; it describes the application of the
interpretation of the data analysis in this research.
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS
4.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 3 discussed the research methodology process. In the next section, the
research findings will be presented. A structured questionnaire was used to collect
the data and it consisted of two sections namely Section 1 which contained three
categorical (Q1.1-Q1.3) and one equal interval item with four sub-items (Q1.4-Q1.7)
that served as independent variables. Question 1.1 asked respondents to indicate
their primary position within the organisation. Three groupings were identified. The
first group (G1) were the principals or heads of department, the second group (G2)
were the educators and the third group (G3) were the regional officials. Question 1.2
asked respondents to indicate the number of years that they had worked in their
current positions. This was divided into two groups of those working 5 years or less
(G1) and those working more than five years (G2). Question 1.3 asked respondents
to indicate who is responsible for the implementation of the IQMS. The two groupings
were as follows: The Mpumalanga DoE or the SMT or unsure (G1) and both the
Mpumalanga DoE and the SMT (G2).
Questions 1.4 to 1.7 asked respondents to rate the extent to which they believe the
IQMS has succeeded in 4 aspects regarding the achievement of goals with respect to
the IQMS implementation. These 4 questions in section 1 were compared to the
questions in section 2 to determine the alignment or non-alignment with regards to
the implementation of the IQMS. As these questions all refer to the achievement of
IQMS objectives it is convenient to refer to them as such. The original four
categories of questions 1.4 to 1.7 were collapsed to two namely to no extent, to a
small extent and to a moderate extent (1) and to a large to a very large extent (2).
Section 2 of the questionnaire consisted of 38 items of an equal interval nature that
was grouped under seven (7) headings and that served as the dependent variables.
The 38 items that investigated strategy implementation with respect to the IQMS
were subjected to a factor analytic procedure to determine the validity of the various
constructs as formulated by the researcher. A discussion of each of the seven
constructs and factor analytic procedure that was used to identify these constructs
will be followed by a discussion of the various statistical tests that were performed on
the data. The dependant variables related to strategy, structure, systems, shared
values, style (management style), staff and skills. Each of these as well as the
findings will be discussed in the next section following the research hypothesis.
4.1.1 Research hypothesis
According to Ghauri, Gronhaug and Kristianslund (1995), a hypothesis is a
preliminary assertion regarding some unknown phenomenon. The hypothesis to be
tested is referred to as the null hypothesis. Specific hypothesis will be set for each of
the factors. However, a more general hypothesis could be as follows:
H0: There is no statistically significant differences between the factor mean scores
of the various groups of respondents regarding the implementation of the IQMS.
An alternative hypothesis to the null-hypothesis is as follows:
H1: There is a statistically significant difference in the factor mean score of the
various groups of respondents regarding the implementation of the IQMS.
4.2 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
A total number of 79 questionnaires were handed out. There were variations in the
number of respondents answering the various questions. Some respondents failed to
answer every question. No plausible reason can be offered for this except that the
respondent might not have understood the question, or felt that it was not applicable
to him/her and therefore did not answer. See below for more information regarding
the response rate per factor.
Figure 4.1 Bar chart of response rate per factor extracted
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
Num
ber
of r
espo
nden
ts
Factors extracted
Response rate (N) per factor extracted
Series1
Series1 75 74 71 77 77 76 78
Factor 1: Strategy
Factor 2: Structure
Factor 3: Systems
Factor 4: Shared Values
Factor 5: Style
Factor 6: Staff
Factor 7: Skills
4.2.1 Strategy as the actions that your organisation plans, both for the short-
and long term regarding the implementation of IQMS (F1).
The data collected from the questionnaires was subjected to a principal component
analysis (PCA) using SPSS 15.0. Six items were posed to respondents that
attempted to probe their perceptions regarding strategy implementation (see Section
2 of the questionnaire items 2.1 to 2.6). The mean ranged from disagree to agree
with the lowest being 2.77 on question 2.6 which relates to whether the IQMS
objectives are regularly communicated. Question 2.1 had the highest mean score
which indicates that most of the respondents seem to be aware of the IQMS
objectives.
Prior to performing principal component analysis (PCA), the suitability of data for
factor analysis was assessed. The correlation matrix indicated the presence of many
coefficients of 0.3 and above. The KMO value was 0.783 exceeding the
recommended value of 0.6. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity was p=0.000. Both of
these values indicated that the items were suitable for factor analysis as all items had
a measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) value >0.6. and communalities >0.3. PCA
revealed the presence of one component with an eigenvalue (3.315) exceeding 1,
explaining 55.25 % of the variance. It was decided to retain one component for
further investigation. This factor had a Cronbach Alpha Reliability (α) value of 0.813
and contained six (6) items.
Table 4.1 Test for normality for the factor related to strategy: Descriptives
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality of data was D (78) = 0.120; p<0.05 which
indicated a significant p-value and hence non-parametric statistical procedures were
utilised for data analysis.
Table 4.2 Tests of normality for the factor related to strategy
Figure 4.2 Histogram: Tests of normality for the factor related to strategy
4.2.1.1 Statistical procedures for analysing the data with respect to F1.
For non-parametric data where more than two independent groups are involved the
Kruskal-Wallis (KW) test can be utilised. It seems appropriate that the hypotheses
first be formulated.
i. Hypotheses for the position within the organisation groups (Q1.1)
• HoF1.KW - There is statistically no significant difference between the sums
of the ranked scores of the three positions in the organisation groups
regarding the strategy for IQMS implementation (F1).
• HaF1.KW - There is a statistically significant difference between the sums of
the ranked scores of the three positions in the organisation groups regarding
the strategy for IQMS implementation (F1).
If the significance level is a value less than 0.05, one must conclude that there is a
statistically significant difference in the continuous variable across the three groups.
The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no statistically significant differences in perceptions
of the three different positions within the organisation groups [G1 (28): Principal or
HOD, X = 3.43; G2 (21): Educator, X = 3.29; G3 (27): Regional official, X = 2.92; χ2
= 5.892; p=0.053]. Therefore, the researcher fails to reject the null hypothesis
(HoF1.KW).
Table 4.3 Comparison: Strategy versus position within the organisation
Descriptives M_Strategy
N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Principal or Head of Department 28 3.4333 .65433 .12366 3.1796 3.6871 2.00 4.83
Educator 21 3.2937 .69102 .15079 2.9791 3.6082 1.33 4.67
Regional official 27 2.9160 .99406 .19131 2.5228 3.3093 1.00 5.00
Total 76 3.2110 .82202 .09429 3.0231 3.3988 1.00 5.00
Table 4.4 Kruskal Wallis Test and grouping variable: Test statistics
Test Statistics(a,b)
M_Strategy
Chi-Square 5.892
df 2
Asymp. Sig. .053
a Kruskal Wallis Test
b Grouping Variable: jq1.1
With respect to the factor strategy for implementation of the IQMS (F1) all three
groups appear to be uncertain regarding the implementation strategy with the
regional officials (G3) being the most uncertain with respect to the strategy
implementation. The IQMS has to be implemented at school level and regional
officials are not that directly concerned with implementation at this level as this is
mostly the domain of the school management team (SMT) with the district playing a
supportive role. However, this could also point to a weakness in communication
between the region, the district and the school regarding the formulation of strategy
with respect to the IQMS. It could also be a lack of synergy between the SMT and the
SDT as there should be regular reports on progress and happenings.
When there are two independent groups present the Mann-Whitney (MW) test can be
utilised. The two values you need to look at are the Z value and the significance level
(Asymp. Sig (2-tailed)). The value must not be less or equal to 0.05, then the result is
not significant.
ii. Hypotheses for the number of years in your present position groups
(Q1.2)
• HoF1.MW - There is statistically no significant differences between the sums
of the ranked scores of the two “number of years in your present position
groups” regarding the strategy for IQMS implementation (F1).
• HaF1.MW - There is a statistically significant difference between the sums of
the ranked scores of the two “numbers of years in your present position
groups” regarding the strategy for IQMS implementation (F1).
Table 4.5 Mann-Whitney Test: Test Statistics
Test Statistics(a)
M_Strategy
Mann-Whitney U 722.000
Wilcoxon W 1625.000
Z -.133
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .894
a Grouping Variable: jq1.2
Table 4.6 Comparison: Strategy versus full years worked
Group Statistics
jq1.2 N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
5 years or less 35 3.2438 .84709 .14318 M_Strategy
More than 5 years 42 3.2063 .81301 .12545
The results of the Mann-Whitney (U) test indicated that there was statistically no
significant difference (p ≥.05) in the summed ranks of the two years in present
position groups [G1 (35): 5 years or less, X =3.24; G2 (42): more than 5 years, X =
3.21; Z = -0.133; p=0.894; r = 0.015]. The null hypothesis (HoF1.MW) thus cannot be
rejected.
Both the years of experience groups are uncertain regarding the implementation
strategy of the IQMS (F1). One would have expected the more experienced group to
have obtained a higher factor mean score than the less experienced group and this
score could reflect a lack of training regarding the strategy for IQMS implementation.
The effect size (r=0.02) was small.
iii. Hypotheses for who is responsible for the implementation of the IQMS
groups (Q1.3)
• HoF1.MW - There is statistically no significant differences between the sums
of the ranked scores of the two IQMS responsibility groups for its strategic
implementation (F1).
• HaF1.MW - There is a statistically significant difference between the sums of
the ranked scores of the two responsibility groups for its strategic
implementation (F1).
Table 4.7 Mann-Whitney Test: Test Statistics
Test Statistics(a)
M_Strategy
Mann-Whitney U 312.500
Wilcoxon W 432.500
Z -1.898
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .058
a Grouping Variable: jq1.3
Table 4.8 Group statistics: Strategy versus who is responsible for the implementation of IQMS.
Group Statistics
jq1.3 N Mean Std.
Deviation Std. Error
Mean
The Mpumalanga Department of Education or The SMT or Unsure 15 2.8444 1.04552 .26995
M_Strategy Both the Mpumalanga department of Education and the SMT 61 3.3038 .74240 .09505
The Mann-Whitney U test shows that the two groups do not differ statistically
significantly in their perceptions regarding the strategy for implementation of the
IQMS [G1 (15): The Mpumalanga Department of Education or the SMT or unsure,
X = 2.84; G2 (61) = Both the Mpumalanga Department of Education and the SMT,
X = 3.30; Z = - 1.89, p=0.058]. The null hypothesis HoF1.MW thus cannot be
rejected.
Although both the responsibility for implementing the IQMS groups are uncertain
regarding the strategy for the IQMS implementation, the majority of the respondents
(G2 = 61) appear to be less uncertain about this responsibility. The responsibility is
obviously a joint one and the uncertainty possibly indicates a lack of effective
communication between the Department of Education and the schools regarding the
formulation of an IQMS implementation strategy (F1).
4.2.2 Structure as the internal organisational structures and processes
regarding the implementation of IQMS (F2).
Five items were posed to respondents that attempted to probe their perceptions
regarding structure (see Section 2 of the questionnaire items 2.7 to 2.11). The mean
score ranged from uncertain to agree with the lowest being 3.03 on questions 2.8
which relates to whether the organisation’s structure leads to effective
implementation of the IQMS. Question 2.7 had the highest mean score which
indicates that individuals have the perception that they are aware of their roles and
responsibilities in implementing the IQMS in their organisations. The correlation
matrix indicated the presence of many coefficients of 0.3 and above.
Table 4.9 Factor analysis - Correlation matrix: structure
Correlation Matrix
q2.7 q2.8 q2.9 q2.10 q2.11
q2.7 1.000 .579 .522 .229 .587
q2.8 .579 1.000 .582 .603 .684
q2.9 .522 .582 1.000 .325 .603
q2.10 .229 .603 .325 1.000 .654
Correlation
q2.11 .587 .684 .603 .654 1.000
The KMO value was 0.743 exceeding the recommended value of 0.6. The Bartlett’s
test of sphericity was p=0.000. The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical
significance indicating that factor analysis was suitable. All items had MSA values
>0.6 and communalities >0.3. PCA revealed the presence of one component with an
eigenvalue (3.176) exceeding 1, explaining 63.51% of the variance. It was decided to
retain one component for further investigation. This factor had a Cronbach Alpha
Reliability (α) value of 0.851 and contained five (5) items. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test for normality of data was D (78) = 0.085; p>0.05 which indicated significance and
therefore the data could be analysed using parametric statistical procedures.
However, as both parametric and non-parametric statistics gave similar results, non-
parametric procedures were used. As only the primary position in the organisation
had statistically significant differences, only this item will be discussed with respect to
factor 2. The normality of a distribution may be checked in several ways. The normal
probability plot compares the observed values with those expected for a normal
distribution. If the data display the characteristics of normality, the points will fall
within a narrow band along a straight line (Cooper and Schindler, 2001:495), as with
the figure below.
Figure 4.3: Normal Q-Q Plot: Tests of normality for the factor related to strategy
4.2.2.1 Hypotheses for the position within the organisation groups (Q1.1)
• HoF2.KW - There is statistically no significant differences between the sums
of the ranked scores of the three positions in the organisation groups
regarding the structures for strategy implementation.
• HaF2.KW - There is a statistically significant difference between the sums of
the ranked scores of the three positions in the organisation groups regarding
the structures for strategy implementation.
Table 4.10 Kruskal Wallis Test and grouping variable: Test statistics
Test Statistics(a,b)
M_Structure
Chi-Square 8.387
df 2
Asymp. Sig. .015
a Kruskal Wallis Test
b Grouping Variable: jq1.1
Table 4.11 Comparison: Structure versus position within the organisation
Descriptives M_Structure
N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Principal or Head of Department 28 3.6357 .89947 .16998 3.2869 3.9845 1.40 5.00
Educator 21 3.1095 .77065 .16817 2.7587 3.4603 1.80 4.60
Regional official 27 2.9315 .98461 .18949 2.5420 3.3210 1.00 4.80
Total 76 3.2401 .93979 .10780 3.0254 3.4549 1.00 5.00
The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a statistically significant difference in perceptions of
the three different positions within the organisation groups [G1 (28): Principal or
HOD, X = 3.64; G2 (21): Educator, X = 3.11; G3 (27): Regional official, X = 2.93; χ2
= 8.387; p=0.015]. The null hypothesis (HoF2.KW) is thus rejected.
When conducting post-hoc procedures the Mann-Whitney focussed test with
Bonferroni correction can be used (Field, 2005: 550). This involves taking a more
critical significance value such as 0.05/3 = 0.017 instead of the normal 0.05 level.
Mann-Whitney tests of G1 versus G2 and G3 indicated that the significant difference
was between group 1 and group 3 [G1 (28): Principal or HOD, X =3.64; G3 (27);
Regional official, X = 2.93; Z= - 2.623. p < 0.017]. Principals or HOD’S in schools
agreed more strongly with the structures for strategy implementation than did
regional officials. This could indicate a confusion regarding the internal reporting lines
and processes at regional level which are not as well specified as are those at the
level of the school (see manual for implementation of IQMS, ELRC, 2003).
4.2.3 Systems as the procedures by which an organisation operates regarding
the implementation of IQMS (F3).
Nine items were posed to respondents that attempted to probe their perceptions
regarding systems (see Section 2 of the questionnaire items 2.12 to 2.20). The mean
score ranged from disagree to uncertain with the lowest being 2.45 on question 2.13
which relates to whether the individual perceived he/she is fairly rewarded for his/her
contribution towards implementation of the IQMS. Question 2.20 had the highest
mean score of 3.18 which indicates that individuals have the perception that they
have access to information in their organisations.
Prior to performing principal component analysis (PCA), the suitability of data for
factor analysis was assessed. The KMO value was 0.770 exceeding the
recommended value of 0.6. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity was p=0.000 indicating
suitability for factor analysis. Of the nine items posed in Section 2 of the
questionnaire one was removed because it had an MSA <0.6 and communality <0.3.
Consequently item 2.14 (Organisational policies prevents me from carrying out my
activities in an efficient manner) was removed. This is a controversial question for
public service employees as it may question their loyalty to the DoE.
The remaining eight items had a KMO of 0.798 and Bartlett’s sphericity of p=0.000
indicating suitability for factor analysis. One component with an eigenvalue (3.613)
exceeding 1, explaining 44.99 % of the variance was isolated.
Table 4.12 Factor analysis: Communalities
Communalities
Initial Extraction
q2.12 .372 .382
q2.13 .416 .362
q2.14 .204 .096
q2.15 .486 .563
q2.16 .439 .464
q2.17 .440 .427
q2.18 .441 .474
q2.19 .396 .370
q2.20 .487 .876
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
One factor resulted from the factor analytic procedure with a α = 0.796 and it
explained 40.15% of the variance present.
Table 4.13 Test for normality for the factor related to systems: Descriptives
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality obtained a value of 0.095 with p=0.077
(p>0.05) which indicated a non-significance and so the data could be analysed using
parametric statistical procedures.
Table 4.14 Tests of normality for the factor related to systems
However, as both parametric and non-parametric statistics gave similar results, non-
parametric procedures were used.
Figure 4.4 Histogram: Tests of normality for the factor related to systems
4.2.3.1 Hypotheses for the position within the organisation groups (Q1.1)
• HoF3.KW - There is statistically no significant differences between the sums
of the ranked scores of the three positions in the organisation groups
regarding the systems available for IQMS implementation (F3).
• HaF3.KW - There is a statistically significant difference between the sums of
the ranked scores of the three positions in the organisation groups regarding
the systems available for IQMS implementation (F3).
Table 4.15 Comparison: Systems versus position within the organisation
Descriptives M_Systems
N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Principal or Head of Department 28 2.8234 .73315 .13855 2.5391 3.1077 1.11 4.22
Educator 21 2.6720 .66340 .14476 2.3700 2.9739 2.00 4.67
Regional official 27 2.6137 .72921 .14034 2.3252 2.9021 1.56 4.56
Total 76 2.7071 .70974 .08141 2.5449 2.8692 1.11 4.67
Table 4.16 Kruskal Wallis Test and grouping variable: Test statistics
Test Statistics(a,b)
M_Systems
Chi-Square 2.050
df 2
Asymp. Sig. .359
a Kruskal Wallis Test
b Grouping Variable: jq1.1
The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no statistically significant differences in perceptions
of the three different positions within the organisation groups [G1 (28): Principal or
HOD, X = 2.82; G2 (21): Educator, X = 2.67; G3 (27): Regional official, X = 2.61; χ2
=2.050; p=0.359]. The null hypothesis (HoF3.KW) thus cannot be rejected.
With respect to the factor systems available for implementation of the IQMS (F3) all
three groups appear to be uncertain regarding the implementation strategy with the
regional officials (G3) being the most uncertain with respect to the systems available
for strategy implementation. No statistically significant differences could be found for
years worked (Q1.2) or for responsibility for implementation of the IQMS (Q1.3).
However, all groups recorded mean scores below 3 and this indicates uncertainty
regarding the systems available for strategy implementation with regional officials
recording the lowest mean scores each time.
4.2.4 Shared values as the culture of an organisation regarding the
implementation of IQMS (F4).
Six items were posed to respondents that attempted to probe their perceptions
regarding strategy implementation (see Section 2 of the questionnaire items 2.21 to
2.26. The mean score ranged from uncertain to agree with the lowest being 3 on
questions 2.23 which relates to whether individuals share common values in the
organisation. Question 2.25 had the highest mean score of 3.18 which states that the
culture in the organisation promotes effective communication.
The KMO value was 0.781 exceeding the recommended value of 0.6. The Bartlett’s
test of sphericity was p=0.000. All items had MSA values >0.6 and communalities
>0.3. Item 26 had a negative factor loading. It was reversed and should be read as
“there is no resistance to change in my organisation”. PCA revealed the presence of
two components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 68.194% per cent of the
variance. A forced procedure was used to retain one component for further
investigation.
Table 4.17 Factor analysis – Total Variance Explained (shared values)
Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Factor
Total % of Variance
Cumulative % Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of Variance
Cumulative %
1 3.085 51.410 51.410 2.413 40.210 40.210 1.729 28.809 28.809
2 1.007 16.784 68.194 .718 11.972 52.182 1.402 23.372 52.182
3 .792 13.192 81.386
4 .519 8.644 90.030
5 .375 6.242 96.272
6 .224 3.728 100.000
Extraction Method: Generalized Least Squares.
This forced procedure resulted in one factor with a Cronbach Alpha Reliability (α)
value of 0.761 which explained 51.4% of the variance present. The Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test for normality of data was D (78) = 0.086, p>0.05 which indicated a non-
significant p-value and hence parametric statistical procedures could be utilised for
data analysis. However, as both parametric and non-parametric statistics gave
similar results, non-parametric procedures were used.
Table 4.18 Tests of normality for the factor related to shared values
4.2.4.1 Hypotheses for the position within the organisation groups (Q1.1)
• HoF4.KW - There is statistically no significant differences between the sums
of the ranked scores of the three positions in the organisation groups
regarding the shared values of the organisation for IQMS implementation (F4).
• HaF4.KW - There is a statistically significant difference between the sums of
the ranked scores of the three positions in the organisation groups regarding
the shared values of the organisation for IQMS implementation (F4).
Table 4.19 Kruskal Wallis Test and grouping variable: Test statistics
Test Statistics(a,b)
M_SharedValues
Chi-Square 2.088
df 2
Asymp. Sig. .352
a Kruskal Wallis Test
b Grouping Variable: jq1.1
Table 4.20 Comparison: Shared values versus position within the organisation
Descriptives M_SharedValues
N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Principal or Head of Department 28 3.1905 .90803 .17160 2.8384 3.5426 1.50 5.00
Educator 21 2.8952 .64285 .14028 2.6026 3.1879 1.80 4.33
Regional official 27 3.1049 .81276 .15642 2.7834 3.4265 1.33 5.00
Total 76 3.0785 .80645 .09251 2.8942 3.2628 1.33 5.00
The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no statistically significant differences in perceptions
of the three different positions within the organisation groups [G1 (28): Principal or
HOD, X = 3.19; G2 (21): Educator, X = 2.89; G3 (27): Regional official, X = 3.10; χ2
=2.088; p=0.352]. The null hypothesis (HoF4.KW) thus cannot be rejected.
Educators appear to be the most uncertain regarding the shared values that refer to
the culture of an organisation with respect to strategy implementation of the IQMS.
This could indicate a problem regarding the effective communication of the common
values and objectives of the IQMS as educators are the ones who are subjected to
the IQMS and hence they should at least be more certain in their perceptions
regarding the objectives of the IQMS. SMT’s and departmental officials need to
recognise this when advocating the implementation of the IQMS. The aspect of
organisational culture is of critical importance in the process of implementing
strategy. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the organisational culture (shared values) forms
the glue that holds the organisation together and leads to commitment to perform. No
statistically significant differences could be found for years worked (Q1.2) or for
responsibility for implementation of the IQMS (Q1.3) with respect to shared values as
strategy for IQMS implementation.
4.2.5 The management style of leaders regarding the implementation of IQMS
(F5).
Three items were posed to respondents that attempted to probe their perceptions
regarding the management style (see Section 2 of the questionnaire items 2.27 to
2.29). The mean score ranged from disagree to agree with the lowest being 2.66 on
question 2.29 which relates to whether the line manager regularly communicates the
objectives of the IQMS. Question 2.27 had the highest mean score of 3.28 which
states that the individual understands the IQMS used in the organisation. Prior to
performing principal component analysis (PCA), the suitability of data for factor
analysis was assessed. The correlation matrix indicated the presence of many
coefficients of 0.3 and above.
Table 4.21 Factor Analysis – Correlation Matrix (Style)
Correlation Matrix
q2.27 q2.28 q2.29
q2.27 1.000 .501 .565
q2.28 .501 1.000 .721 Correlation
q2.29 .565 .721 1.000
The KMO value was 0.678 exceeding the recommended value of 0.6. The Bartlett’s
test of sphericity was p=0.000. The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical
significance indicating that factor analysis is suitable. All three items had MSA values
>0.6 and communalities >0.3.
Table 4.22 Factor Analysis – KMO and Bartlett’s Test (Style)
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .678
Approx. Chi-Square 84.871
df 3 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Sig. .000
PCA revealed the presence of one component with eigenvalues exceeding 1,
explaining 73.21% of the variance. This factor had a Cronbach Alpha Reliability (α)
value of 0.815. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality of data was D (78) =
0.116; p=0.011 which indicated a significant p-value and hence non-parametric
statistical procedures were utilised for data analysis.
Table 4.23 Tests of normality for the factor related to style
4.2.5.1 Hypotheses for the position within the organisation groups (Q1.1)
• HoF5.KW - There is statistically no significant differences between the sums
of the ranked scores of the three positions in the organisation groups
regarding the management styles of the leaders for IQMS implementation
(F5).
• HaF5.KW - There is a statistically significant difference between the sums of
the ranked scores of the three positions in the organisation groups regarding
the management styles of the leaders for IQMS implementation (F5).
Table 4.24 Kruskal Wallis Test and grouping variable: Test statistics
Test Statistics(a,b)
M_Style
Chi-Square 2.511
df 2
Asymp. Sig. .285
a Kruskal Wallis Test
b Grouping Variable: jq1.1
Table 4.25 Comparison: Style versus position within the organisation
Descriptives M_Style
N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Principal or Head of Department 28 3.1429 1.15623 .21851 2.6945 3.5912 1.00 5.00
Educator 21 2.9048 .87650 .19127 2.5058 3.3037 1.33 4.33
Regional official 27 2.7654 1.08924 .20963 2.3345 3.1963 1.00 5.00
Total 76 2.9430 1.06024 .12162 2.7007 3.1853 1.00 5.00
The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no statistically significant differences in perceptions
of the three different positions within the organisation groups [G1 (28): Principal or
HOD, X = 3.14; G2 (21): Educator, X = 2.90; G3 (27): Regional official, X = 2.77; χ2
=2.511; p=0.285]. The null hypothesis (HoF5.KW) thus cannot be rejected.
Although no significant differences could be found it is disconcerting to see the
uncertainty of regional officials regarding the management styles of their leaders as
this could indicate a lack of effective communication of the IQMS objectives at
regional level. No statistically significant differences could be found for years worked
(Q1.2) or for responsibility for implementation of the IQMS (Q1.3) with respect to the
management styles of leaders as strategy for IQMS implementation.
4.2.6 Staff as people doing the work regarding encouragement of performance
appraisals, motivation and morale with respect to the implementation of IQMS
(F6).
Five items were posed to respondents that attempted to probe their perceptions
regarding strategy implementation (see Section 2 of the questionnaire items 2.30 to
2.34). The mean score ranged from disagree to agree with the lowest being 2.12 on
question 2.31 which relates to whether the learner-to-educator ratio in the
organisation supports the effective implementation of the IQMS. Question 2.30 had
the highest mean score of 3.04 which states that there are adequate qualified
educators/officials per subject area/task in their organisations.
The KMO value was 0.701 exceeding the recommended value of 0.6. The Bartlett’s
test of sphericity was p=0.000, indicating that factor analysis is suitable. All five items
had MSA values >0.6 and three items had communalities >0.3. Two of the items
namely Q2.30 (there is adequate qualified educators/officials per subject area/task in
my organisation) and Q2.31 (the learner to educator ratio in my organisation supports
effective implementation of the IQMS) had extracted communalities less than 0.3.
Table 4.26 Factor Analysis – Communalities (Staff)
Communalities
Initial Extraction
q2.30 .110 .095
q2.31 .093 .119
q2.32 .422 .729
q2.33 .323 .435
q2.34 .251 .268
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
However, it was decided to keep them in the factor analytic procedure as the KMO
value was adequate. PCA revealed the presence of one component with an
eigenvalue exceeding 1, explaining 43.68% of the variance. This factor had a
Cronbach Alpha Reliability (α) value of 0.660 and contained five (5) items. Although
the α is < 0.7, it should be remembered that one is dealing with a diversity of
constructs and a few items can influence the α value (Field, 2005: 668). Thus a value
of 0.66 is acceptable. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality of data was D (78)
= 0.097; p=0.067 which indicated a non-significant p-value and hence parametric
statistical procedures could be utilised for data analysis. The non-parametric
procedures indicated similar results and hence they were rather utilised.
Table 4.27 Tests of normality for the factor related to staff
4.2.6.1 Hypotheses for the position within the organisation groups (Q1.1)
• HoF6.KW - There is statistically no significant differences between the sums
of the ranked scores of the three positions in the organisation groups
regarding the encouragement of performance appraisals, motivation and
morale for IQMS implementation (F6).
• HaF6.KW - There is a statistically significant difference between the sums of
the ranked scores of the three positions in the organisation groups regarding
the encouragement of performance appraisals, motivation and morale for
IQMS implementation (F6).
Table 4.28 Kruskal Wallis Test and grouping variable: Test statistics
Test Statistics(a,b)
M_Staff
Chi-Square 7.151
df 2
Asymp. Sig. .028
a Kruskal Wallis Test
b Grouping Variable: jq1.1
Table 4.29 Comparison: Staff versus position within the organisation
Descriptives M_Staff
N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Principal or Head of Department 28 2.8214 .72896 .13776 2.5388 3.1041 1.20 4.40
Educator 21 2.7429 .83461 .18213 2.3629 3.1228 1.20 4.60
Regional official 27 2.2963 .65485 .12603 2.0372 2.5553 1.00 3.60
Total 76 2.6132 .76339 .08757 2.4387 2.7876 1.00 4.60
The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a statistically significant difference in perceptions of
the three different positions within the organisation groups [G1 (28): Principal or
HOD, X = 2.82; G2 (21): Educator, X = 2.74; G3 (27): Regional official, X = 2.29; χ2
=7.151; p=0.028]. The null hypothesis (HoF6.KW) thus cannot be accepted.
The Mann-Whitney focussed test with Bonferroni correction was used. Hence a p-
value of 0.017 instead of the normal 0.05 level was acceptable. Mann-Whitney tests
of G1 versus G2 and G3 indicated that the significant difference was between group
1 and group 3 [G1 (28): Principal or HOD, X = 2.82; G3 (27); Regional official, X =
2.29; Z= - 2.664. p < 0.017. The effect size was 0.36 indicating a medium practical
significance value.
Regional officials disagree with this factor most strongly and this indicates a possible
staff problem especially at regional level. The shortage of qualified officials and the
large learner to educator ratios in schools are probably the main reasons for the low
mean scores of this factor. However the training and feedback regarding the
implementation of IQMS also feature in this factor and both of these aspects are also
a cause for concern. Staff as an aspect of strategy implementation is thus
problematic
4.2.7 Skills as the combined knowledge, skills and abilities of staff with
respect to the implementation of IQMS (F7).
Four items were posed to respondents that attempted to probe their perceptions
regarding strategy implementation (see Section 2 of the questionnaire items 2.35 to
2.38). The mean score ranged from disagree to agree with the lowest being 2.36 on
question 2.37 which relates to whether the individual is sent for further development
and training on the IQMS. Question 2.35 had the highest mean score of 3.50 which
states that further education and training is encouraged in the organisation. Prior to
performing principal component analysis (PCA), the suitability of data for factor
analysis was assessed. The correlation matrix indicated the presence of many
coefficients of 0.3 and above.
Table 4.30 Factor Analysis – Correlation Matrix (Skills)
Correlation Matrix
q2.35 q2.36 q2.37 q2.38
q2.35 1.000 .485 .326 .361
q2.36 .485 1.000 .390 .443
q2.37 .326 .390 1.000 .539 Correlation
q2.38 .361 .443 .539 1.000
The KMO value was 0.727 exceeding the recommended value of 0.6. The Bartlett’s
test of sphericity was p=0.000 The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical
significance indicating that factor analysis is suitable. All four items had MSA values
>0.6 and communalities >0.3.
Table 4.31 Factor Analysis – Measure of Sampling Adequacy (Skills)
Anti-image Matrices Anti-image Correlation
q2.35 q2.36 q2.37 q2.38
q2.35 .746(a) -.368 -.099 -.126
q2.36 -.368 .735(a) -.149 -.230
q2.37 -.099 -.149 .720(a) -.426
q2.38 -.126 -.230 -.426 .711(a)
a Measures of Sampling Adequacy(MSA)
PCA revealed the presence of one component with an eigenvalue exceeding 1,
explaining 56.84% of the variance. This factor had a Cronbach Alpha Reliability (α)
value of 0.746. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality of data was D (78) =
0.124; p=0.005 which indicated a significant p-value and hence non-parametric
statistical procedures could be utilised for data analysis.
Table 4.32 Tests of normality for the factor related to skills
In addition, both the histogram and the normal Q-Q plot also indicated deviation from
normality indicating the feasibility that non-parametric procedures should be utilised.
Figure 4.5 Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot: Tests of normality for the factor related
to skills
4.2.7.1 Hypotheses for the position within the organisation groups (Q1.1)
• HoF7.KW - There is statistically no significant differences between the sums
of the ranked scores of the three positions in the organisation groups
regarding the combined knowledge, skills and abilities of staff for IQMS
implementation (F7).
• HaF7.KW - There is a statistically significant difference between the sums of
the ranked scores of the three positions in the organisation groups regarding
the combined knowledge, skills and abilities of staff for IQMS implementation
(F7).
Table 4.33 Kruskal Wallis Test and grouping variable: Test statistics
Test Statistics(a,b)
M_Skills
Chi-Square 1.190
df 2
Asymp. Sig. .552
a Kruskal Wallis Test
b Grouping Variable: jq1.1
Table 4.34 Comparison: Skills versus position within the organisation
Descriptives M_Skills
N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Principal or Head of Department 28 2.8304 .97195 .18368 2.4535 3.2072 1.00 5.00
Educator 21 2.8452 .98259 .21442 2.3980 3.2925 1.00 4.50
Regional official 27 3.1111 .88070 .16949 2.7627 3.4595 2.00 5.00
Total 76 2.9342 .94018 .10785 2.7194 3.1491 1.00 5.00
The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no statistically significant differences in perceptions
of the three different positions within the organisation groups [G1 (28): Principal or
HOD, X = 2.83; G2 (21): Educator, X = 2.84; G3 (27): Regional official, X = 3.11; χ2
= 1.190; p=0.552]. The null hypothesis (HoF7.KW) thus cannot be rejected.
Although no significant differences could be found it is disconcerting to see the
uncertainty levels of principals and HOD’s as well as that of educators. This could be
an indication more attention needs to be provided at the level of the school with
respect to training in implementing the IQMS. No statistically significant differences
could be found for years worked (Q1.2) or for responsibility for implementation of the
IQMS (Q1.3) with respect to the knowledge, skills and abilities of staff as strategy for
IQMS implementation.
Question 1.4 in Section 1 of the questionnaire asked respondents to rate the IQMS
according to identifying specific needs of educators (Q1.4); the promotion of
accountability among educators (Q1.5); the monitoring of school effectiveness
(Q1.6); and as a means of evaluating teacher performance (Q1.7). As these
questions all refer to the achievement of IQMS objectives it will be convenient to refer
to them as such. The original five categories of questions 1.4 to 1.7 were collapsed
to two namely to no extent, to a small extent and to a moderate extent (1) and to a
large to a very large extent (2).
As the length of this research report is limited, hypotheses will not be set and the four
questions will be discussed regarding the seven factors that are latent to strategic
implementation of the IQMS.
4.3 THE ACHIEVEMENT OF IQMS OBJECTIVES AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
VERSUS THE FACTORS FOR STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION (F1 – F7).
Each of the IQMS objectives (Q1.4 to Q1.7) was tested against the seven factors
latent to strategy implementation in an effort to find a relationship between the
dependent variables (factors) and the independent variables (Heiman, 2001:180).
4.3.1 Strategy (F1) as dependant variable versus the objectives of the IQMS.
Strategy refers to the actions that the organisation plans regarding the
implementation of the IQMS and this factor has already been shown to have
construct validity and high reliability. The implementation strategy will now be
examined in relation to the objectives of the IQMS.
4.3.1.1 Extent that IQMS has identified specific needs of educators
regarding support and development (Q1.4).
There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups with respect to
strategy as action plans for IQMS implementation [G1 (61): To no, small or moderate
extent, X = 3.09; G2 (15): To a large and very large extent, X = 3.76; Z= -2.96, p=
0.003, r = 0.34. This question thus has both statistical and practical significance. The
larger group of respondents (N=61) are more uncertain in their belief regarding the
ability of strategic planning as a mechanism to identify the needs of educators with
respect to support and development. No statistically significant differences could be
found for items 1.5 to 1.7.
4.3.2 Structure as dependant variable versus the objectives of the IQMS.
Structure refers to the internal organisational structures and processes available
when implementing IQMS.
4.3.2.1 Extent that IQMS has identified specific needs of educators
regarding support and development (Q1.4).
As the data spread for this factor (F2) was normal, the independent samples t-test
could be utilised. Regarding the specific needs of educators a statistically significant
difference (see table 4.36) was found between the two groups [t (74) = -2.356,
p=0.021]. The group with the perception that IQMS was to no extent, to a small or
moderate extent able to identify the needs of educators regarding support and
development with respect to structure, had a statistically significantly lower factor
mean score ( X = 3.128) than the group that believed that the IQMS had done this to
a large and very large extent ( X = 3.75).
The effect size was small (r = 0.26). Because the group with the lower perception
value is much larger in size (N=61) than the higher perception group (N=15) it is
more likely that there is uncertainty regarding the organisational structures and their
effectiveness in achieving the IQMS goal of support and development of educators.
No statistically significant differences could be found between the extent of
agreement groups and items 1.5 to 1.7.
Table 4.35 Comparisons: Structure versus the extent that IQMS has identified
specific needs of educators regarding support and development
Group Statistics
jq1.4 N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
No extent to Moderate extent 61 3.1279 .93187 .11931 M_Structure
Large to Very Large extent 15 3.7500 .84705 .21871
Table 4.36 Independent Samples Test: Structure versus the extent that IQMS
has identified specific needs of educators regarding support and development
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower
Equal variances assumed
.314 .577 -2.356 74 .021 -.62213 .26411 -1.14839
-.09587
M_Structure Equal variances not assumed
-2.497 23.096 .020 -.62213 .24914 -
1.13739 -
.10687
The effect size was small (r = 0.26). No statistically significant differences could be
found between the extent of agreement groups and items 1.5 to 1.7.
4.3.3 Systems as dependant variable versus the objectives of IQMS.
Structure as latent dimension of strategic planning had a normal spread of data and
hence independent t-tests could be utilised.
4.3.3.1 Identified specific needs of educators regarding support and
development (Q1.4).
The independent t-test indicated a statistically significant difference between the
factor mean scores of the extent of agreement groups with respect to systems as
dimension of strategic planning [ t (74) = -2.096, p=0.039, r=0.24]. The larger group
(N=61) had a statistically significantly lower factor mean score ( X =2.62) than the
smaller group (N=15) with a factor mean score of X = 3.04. Thus, although both
groups tended to agree to a moderate extent the larger group agreed to a smaller
extent with the systems present that could facilitate the implementation of IQMS. The
effect size was small (r=0.24). It thus appears as if more needs to be done with
respect to the provision of fair procedures, teaching aids and rewards for teaching
performance. No statistically significant differences regarding items 1.5 and 1.7 could
be found.
4.3.3.2 IQMS as monitoring mechanism for school effectiveness (Q1.6)
The independent t-test (see table 4.38) indicated a statistically significant difference
between the two extent of belief groups regarding the IQMS as mechanism for
monitoring school effectiveness with respect to the systems in strategic planning [t
(73) = -2.367, p= 0.035, r= 0.27]. The larger group (N=63) had a lower factor mean
score ( X =2.60) than the smaller group (N=12 and X = 3.29). The larger group thus
believed to a smaller extent that the strategic systems regarding the implementation
of IQMS was in place and hence a more negative perception of the ability of the
IQMS to monitor school effectiveness.
Table 4.37 Comparisons: Systems versus IQMS as monitoring mechanism for
school effectiveness (Q1.6)
Group Statistics
jq1.6 N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
No extent to Moderate extent 63 2.6096 .59180 .07456 M_Systems
Large to Very Large extent 12 3.2928 .96621 .27892
Table 4.38 Independent Samples Test: Systems versus IQMS as monitoring
mechanism for school effectiveness (Q1.6)
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower
Equal variances assumed
5.662 .020 -3.277 73 .002 -.68326 .20848 -1.09876
-.26775
M_Systems Equal variances not assumed
-2.367 12.617 .035 -.68326 .28871 -1.30891
-.05760
4.3.4 Shared values as dependant variable versus the objectives of IQMS.
The value of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (D=0.086, p>0.05) indicated normality of
data and hence the independent t-test could be used.
4.3.4.1 Extent that IQMS has identified specific needs of educators
regarding support and development (Q1.4)
The independent t-test which utilises Levene’s test for equality of variances indicated
a statistically significant difference between the two extent of belief groups with
respect to the shared values of strategic planning [t (74) = -2.541, p=0.013, r= 0.28].
Both groups tended towards a moderate extent of belief but the larger group had the
lower factor mean score (N=61 and X = 2.97). Thus shared values that reflect a
culture supporting educator development seems to need greater attention at regional
and school levels. No statistically significant differences could be found regarding the
factor mean scores of items 1.5 and 1.6.
4.3.4.2 Extent that IQMS has succeeded in evaluating teacher
performance (Q1.7)
The independent t-test which utilises Levene’s test for equality of variances indicated
a statistically significant difference [t (74) = -2.380, p=0.020, r= 0.28]. The group with
the smaller extent of agreement ( X = 2.99) with the shared values factor were also
the largest in size (N=65). Only 11 respondents believed to a large; to a very large
extent that the shared values factor contributed towards successful evaluation of
teacher performance. The IQMS was designed to measure teacher performance and
the creation of a culture where performance is highly valued is necessary. The
majority of the respondents only agreed to a small or a moderate extent with this
factor.
4.3.5 Management style of the leaders as dependant variables versus the
objectives of the IQMS.
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality of data was D (78) = 0.116; p<0.05
indicated a significant p-value and hence non-parametric statistical procedures were
utilised for data analysis. The Mann-Whitney tests indicated no statistically significant
differences between the factors mean scores for any of the items 1.4 to 1.7. The
researcher believes that a style that facilitates authentic collegiality between all
stakeholders in the school is needed. However, no questions probing this were
asked. This was an error in the design of the questionnaire. An analysis of the
questions asked will indicate a bias towards the communication style of leaders.
Effective communication is only one dimension of leadership and the questions in the
questionnaire need to be adapted to reflect this.
4.3.6 Staff as people who encourage and motivate educators to improve
morale as dependant variable versus the objectives of IQMS.
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality of data was D (78) = 0.097; p>0.05 which
indicated a non-significant p-value and hence parametric statistical procedures were
utilised for data analysis. Independent t-tests used showed that only item 1.6 had
statistically significant differences between the extent of agreement groups. This
difference indicates that a shortage of adequately qualified staff and large learner-
teacher ratios make it difficult for the IQMS to monitor school effectiveness.
4.3.6.1 The extent that IQMS has managed to monitor school
effectiveness (Q1.6)
The independent t-test [t (73) =-2.126, p= 0.037] indicated that the larger group
(N=63) agreed to a moderate tending to a small extent ( X = 2.54) that the staff
available had managed to monitor school effectiveness. The smaller group (N=12;
X = 3.05) believed this to a moderate extent. The difference is thus statistically
significant. The effect size value was small (r= 0.24). This difference again indicates
that a shortage of adequately qualified staff and large learner-teacher ratios make it
difficult for the IQMS to monitor school effectiveness.
4.3.7 Skills and abilities of staff as dependant variable versus the objectives of
IQMS.
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality of data was D (78) = 0.124; p>0.05
indicated a non-significant p-value. The histogram and normal Q-Q plots indicated
uncertainty and hence non-parametric tests were decided upon.
4.3.7.1 Extent that IQMS has identified specific needs of educators
regarding support and development (Q1.4)
The Mann-Whitney U test indicated statistically significant differences between the
two extent of agreement groups (Z = -2.158, p=0.031, r= 0.25). Both groups
believed to a moderate extent that the IQMS is able to identify specific needs
regarding support and development. However the larger group (N=61) agreed to a
significantly smaller extent with this factor. One of the objectives of the IQMS is to
identify such needs so that the needed support and development can be provided.
One would have expected a larger extent of agreement regarding this factor. The
Mann-Whitney tests indicated no statistically significant differences between the
factor mean scores for any of the items 1.5 and 1.7.
4.3.7.2 Extent that IQMS has managed to monitor school effectiveness
(Q1.6)
The Mann-Whitney U test indicated that there was statistically significant differences
between the factor mean score of the two extent of belief groups with respect to
IQMS (Z = -2.563, p= 0.010, r=0.30). The larger group (N=63) had a statistically
significantly lower factor mean score than the smaller group (N=12).
Table 4.39 Mann-Whitney Test: Test Statistics
Test Statistics(a)
M_Skills
Mann-Whitney U 201.500
Wilcoxon W 2217.500
Z -2.563
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .010
a Grouping Variable: jq1.6
Table 4.40 Comparisons: Skills versus the extent that IQMS has managed to
monitor school effectiveness (Q1.6)
Group Statistics
jq1.6 N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
No extent to Moderate extent 63 2.8254 .89198 .11238 M_Skills
Large to Very Large extent 12 3.5833 .96727 .27923
Although both groups believed to a moderate extent that the skills and abilities of
their staff had an influence on the extent that IQMS had managed to monitor school
effectiveness the larger group believed this to a smaller extent ( X = 2.82 compared
to X = 3.58). It appears that the combined skills and abilities of the staff as an aspect
of strategic planning have not been sufficiently developed so that the IQMS can also
serve as a mechanism to monitor school effectiveness.
4.4 CONCLUSION
This chapter discussed each of the seven constructs and factor analytic procedure
that were used in this report. Results were presented and analysed in this chapter.
The research hypothesis was also stated in this chapter.
A discussion and analysis of findings will follow in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
5.6 INTRODUCTION
Results obtained from the completed questionnaires were presented in the previous
chapter. A discussion of each of the seven constructs and factor analytic procedure
that was used to identify these constructs was followed by a discussion of the various
statistical tests that were performed on the data. The data was analysed and
discussed. In this chapter, the issues will be identified according to the seven
implementation levers as identified in the McKinsey 7-S Framework. Findings will
also be linked to the literature in an attempt to indicate the issues identified.
5.7 ISSUES IDENTIFIED
Based on the data analysis, various issues surfaced with regards to the
implementation efforts related to the IQMS.
5.2.1 Strategy
Strategy refers to the actions that the organisation plans regarding the
implementation of the IQMS and this factor had construct validity and high reliability.
All three groups appeared to be uncertain regarding the implementation of the
strategy with the regional officials being the most uncertain. This uncertainty could be
the result of the IQMS being implemented at school level and according to the IQMS,
the principal and SMT is responsible with the regional office playing a supportive role.
However, this could also point to a weakness in communication between the region,
the district and the school regarding the formulation of strategy with respect to the
IQMS.
There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups with respect to
strategy as action plans for IQMS implementation. The larger group of respondents
were more uncertain in their belief regarding the ability of strategic planning as a
mechanism to identify the needs of educators with respect to support and
development. It thus appears as if the strategic plans with respect to educators need
for support and development will need to be communicated more effectively.
5.2.2 Structure
Statistical significance was found with regards to the first independent variable
(current position in the organisation) and structure (a dependent variable). Principals
or Heads of Departments (HOD’s) in schools agreed more strongly with the
structures for strategy implementation than did regional officials. This could indicate a
confusion regarding the internal reporting lines and processes at regional level which
are not as well specified as are those at school level.
A statistically significant difference was found between the two groups regarding the
extent to which they believe the IQMS had identified the specific needs of educators
regarding support and development. Because the group with the lower perception
value was much larger in size than the higher perception group, it was more likely
that there was uncertainty regarding the organisational structures and their
effectiveness in achieving the IQMS goal of support and development of educators.
5.2.3 Systems
All three groups appeared to be uncertain regarding the implementation strategy with
the regional officials being the most uncertain with respect to the systems available
for strategy implementation. All groups recorded mean scores below 3 and this
indicated uncertainty regarding the systems available for strategy implementation
with regional officials recording the lowest mean scores each time.
A statistically significant difference was found between the factor mean scores of the
extent of agreement groups with respect to systems as a dimension of strategic
planning. It appeared that there is uncertainty regarding systems and how it had
managed to identify specific needs of educators regarding support and development.
Thus, it appears as if more needs to be done with respect to the provision of fair
procedures, teaching aids and rewards for teaching performance. There seemed to
be a more negative perception of the ability of the IQMS to monitor school
effectiveness.
5.2.4 Shared values
Educators appeared to be the most uncertain regarding the shared values that refer
to the culture of an organisation with respect to strategy implementation of the IQMS.
This could indicate a problem regarding the effective communication of the common
values and objectives of the IQMS. Educators are the ones who are subjected to the
IQMS and hence they should at least be more certain in their perceptions regarding
the objectives of the IQMS. No statistically significant differences could be found for
years worked or for responsibility for implementation of the IQMS with respect to
shared values as strategy for IQMS implementation. This could indicate that the
IQMS had not significantly contributed to enhancing shared values within the
organisation. The IQMS is in its fourth year of existence and one would assume that
respondents in group 1 (longer than 5 years in current position) would have a more
positive perception regarding the new system. Shared values that reflect a culture
supporting educator development seems to need greater attention at regional and
school levels.
Only 11 respondents believed to a large; to a very large extent that shared values, as
a dimension of strategic planning, contributed towards successful evaluation of
teacher performance. The IQMS was designed to measure teacher performance and
the creation of a culture where performance is highly valued is important. The
majority of respondents only agreed to a small or a moderate extent with this factor.
5.2.5 Style
No statistically significant differences in perceptions of the three different positions
within the organisation groups could be found. It is disconcerting to see the
uncertainty of regional officials regarding the management styles of their leaders as
this could indicate a lack of effective communication of the IQMS objectives at
regional level. No statistically significant differences could be found for years worked
or for responsibility for implementation of the IQMS with respect to the management
styles of leaders as strategy for IQMS implementation.
The researcher believes that a style that facilitates authentic collegiality between all
stakeholders in the school is needed. However, no questions probing this were
asked. An analysis of the questions asked will indicate a bias towards the
communication style of leaders. Effective communication is only one of many
dimensions of leadership and the questions in the questionnaire need to be adapted
to reflect this.
5.2.6 Staff
The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a statistically significant difference in perceptions of
the three different positions within the organisation groups. Regional officials
disagreed with this factor most strongly and this indicated a possible staff problem
especially at regional level. The shortage of qualified officials and the large learner to
educator ratios in schools are probably the main reasons for the low mean scores of
this factor. However, the training and feedback regarding the implementation of IQMS
also featured in this factor and both of these aspects were also a cause for concern.
Staff as an aspect of strategy implementation is thus problematic.
Only item 1.6 had statistically significant differences between the extents of
agreement groups. This difference again indicates that a shortage of adequately
qualified staff and large learner-teacher ratios make it difficult for the IQMS to monitor
school effectiveness. Question 2.35 had the highest mean score of 3.50 which states
that further education and training is encouraged in the organisation. This is one of
the objectives of the IQMS and it seems that according to the perception of the
implementers, this is being done.
5.2.7 Skills
No significant differences could be found regarding the skills factor and it is
disconcerting to see the uncertainty levels of principals and HOD’s as well as that of
educators regarding skills. This could be an indication that more attention needs to
be provided at the level of the school with respect to training in implementing the
IQMS.
A belief was indicated that the IQMS was able to identify specific needs regarding
support and development. One of the objectives of the IQMS is to identify such needs
so that the needed support and development can be provided. One would have
expected a larger extent of agreement regarding this factor.
Both groups believed to a moderate extent that the skills and abilities of their staff
had an influence on the extent that IQMS had managed to monitor school
effectiveness. The larger group however, believed this to a smaller extent. It appears
that the combined skills and abilities of the staff as an aspect of strategic planning
have not been sufficiently developed so that the IQMS can also serve as a
mechanism to monitor school effectiveness.
The previous section highlighted some of he issues identified as per the
implementation levers of the McKinsey 7-S Framework. The findings from the data
will be linked to the literature cited in Chapter 2 in the following section.
5.8 FINDINGS LINKED TO LITERATURE CITED IN THE LITERATURE REVIEW
In chapter 2, the strategic management process was explained as well as various
challenges/pitfalls related to strategy implementation. Data obtained from the
completed questionnaires indicated that these challenges/pitfalls are evident in the
strategy implementation efforts regarding the IQMS. The first challenge/pitfall related
to a lack of understanding of how the strategy should be implemented. This relates to
the short- and long-term plans of the organisation. Respondents indicated on
average that they are uncertain about the annual objectives of the IQMS and also
indicated that the IQMS objectives are not regularly communicated to them.
Respondents indicated that they were not adequately trained for implementation of
the IQMS.
A lack of understanding was another challenge/pitfall. The mean score for question
2.27 (I understand the IQMS used in my organisation) was 3.27 which indicated that
on average, the respondents were uncertain. The policy document on IQMS clearly
states its purpose, the various roles and responsibilities, but it appeared as if the
implementers did not really understand it.
A stakeholder not fully appreciating the strategy was another challenge/pitfall. The
majority of respondents indicated that they were uncertain/ agreed that they support
the IQMS objectives. This could again mean that because of a lack of understanding,
respondents did not support the strategy. It could also be the result of not being
involved in the design of the IQMS. Commitment to the IQMS objectives can only be
achieved if stakeholders are involved from the beginning of the process. Insufficient
involvement is likely to increase the implementation gap.
Individuals’ lacking clarity about his /her responsibilities in the change process was
another challenge/ pitfall. Most indicated that they were aware of their roles and
responsibilities in implementing the IQMS. Difficulties and obstacles not
acknowledged, recognised or acted upon was another challenge and links directly to
the feedback process as the strategy is being implemented. Question 2.34 had a
mean score of 2.38, ranging from disagree (2) to uncertain (3), which indicated that
feedback was not provided on a continuous basis with respect to the implementation
of the IQMS. When asked if respondents have access to information in the
organisation, the answer ranged from uncertain to agree.
The last challenge/ pitfall identified were that of respondents having the perception
that the day-to-day business imperatives were ignored. Teaching and learning must
take place every day and in order for this to happen, resources are needed.
Respondents indicated that there was insufficient teaching aids/equipment available
to perform activities. The large learner-to-educator ratio in the organisation was also
a mitigating variable as it did not support the effective implementation of the IQMS.
In the next section, findings will be discussed in relation to the McKinsey 7-S
Framework.
5.3.1 Strategy
The formulation phase consists of the following components: company mission
(vision), social responsibility and ethics; external environment; internal analysis;
strategic analysis and choice; long-term objectives and generic and grand strategies.
The IQMS is a grand strategy in itself and appears that the strategic planning process
as described by Pearce and Robinson in Chapter 2 was also followed in the case of
the Department of Education. The Mpumalanga DoE has a vision, mission, value
statement and strategic plan containing the strategic objectives. During the design of
the IQMS, various stakeholders were consulted and the long-term strategy was
crafted. The extent of stakeholder consultation and the amount of participation by
educators seems to be points of debate.
The implementation phase of the strategic management model by Pearce and
Robinson consists of the following components: short term objectives; reward
systems; functional tactics; policies; organisational structure, leadership and culture
and strategic control, innovation and entrepreneurship. According to the IQMS, a
structure is in place to ensure the implementation of the IQMS
(http://www.elrc.ac.za). The study conducted by Okumus, identified key variables for
successful strategy implementation. The first most important variable was
organisational structure and people, secondly strategy formulation and resource
allocation and thirdly communication and organisational culture. As far as structure
for the strategy implementation process is concerned, the Mpumalanga DoE is in line
with Pearce and Robinson and with Okumus. The questionnaire did not ask sufficient
questions regarding leadership, specifically leadership style. This is a gap in the
design phase. Data analysis indicated that most respondents were uncertain about
the shared values (organisational culture) in the organisation. As mentioned earlier,
shared values/ culture forms the glue that holds an organisation together and fosters
commitment to performance. A lack of shared values could lead to the IQMS strategy
not being effectively implemented.
As far as strategic control is concerned, the aim of this research report was not to
assess the school evaluation system, but respondents indicated that it does take
place. Strategy can suffer because of a lack of reflection if no evaluation took place. It
is impossible to become innovative if there is no review of what has been done. The
communication “climate” has a direct influence on strategic control. Respondents
indicated that they were uncertain about the culture in the organisation promoting
effective communication. When asked about tolerance for different views and
opinions in the organisation, respondent’s answers ranged from uncertain to agree.
The respondents consisted of a mixture between officials, principals and educators. It
is unlikely that educators will openly express their opinions in front of their
supervisors. Thus there could be a measure of a “cautious open” communication
climate in the system.
A comparison of the key variables, as identified by Okumus, and the implementation
levers used in the implementation of the IQMS, indicated possible gaps. It is evident
that these variables are utilised in the implementation of the IQMS but it is a question
of how effective and efficient it is utilised by the stakeholders.
Thompson and Strickland (2003:19) state that managing the strategy implementation
process requires, amongst others, establishing strategy-supportive policies and
operating procedures; tying the reward structure to the achievement of targeted
results; installing information, communication, and operating systems that enable
organisation personnel to carry out their strategic roles effectively; allocation of
organisation resources; and developing the internal leadership needed to drive
implementation forward and to improve how the strategy is executed.
Data analysis indicated that respondents answers ranged from disagree to uncertain
with respect to being fairly rewarded for efforts in implementing the IQMS as well as
the reward structure being linked to performance as provided in the IQMS document.
The allocation of resources was also identified as a problem as respondents felt that
there was insufficient teaching aids/equipment available. The learner-to-educator
ratio was also a major issue. Regarding the first round of the IQMS, the educators
received no rewards if they were recommended by the SMT’s of their schools as the
Department of National Education indicated that the documents sent to them showed
no correlation with the actual performance of the educators. This, no doubt, led to
great dissatisfaction on the part of educators as they probably felt aggrieved at the
“high-handed” approach followed by the DoE.
According to Becher (2007) to bridge the gap between strategy and employees' day-
to-day execution of that strategy, an organisation’s executives must succeed in four
areas: they must motivate employees toward the strategic objectives by
communicating the goals; they must manage operational programs in a way that
empowers individuals to take ownership; they must monitor the organisations
progress and they must measure operational performance in a way that clearly
identifies problems and areas for growth. The opinion of the respondents indicated
that they were not regularly evaluated as instructed via the IQMS document as Q2.32
had an average mean score of 2.76 which ranged from disagree to uncertain.
Furthermore the failure of rewards to materialise caused already low levels of morale
to decrease even further. The so-called correlation of teacher performance with the
scores submitted should have been clearly communicated before the documents
were submitted and not afterwards.
Sterling (2003:30) states that some strategies fail because there is insufficient buy-in
to or understanding of the strategy among those who need to implement it. He further
states that the surest way to ensure that someone understands a strategy is to
involve him or her in its creation. As stated earlier, the various individual schools
were not necessarily involved in the formulation of the strategy by the department,
but were probably involved in formulating the short term objectives of the school via
the SIP.
5.3.2 Structure
Thompson (1991:52) explains organisational structure as three related things. The
first one means the division of labour; dividing work into tasks or roles such as
operations, logistics, and training in other words the organisations administrative
structure. Secondly, it refers to the distribution of authority and responsibility to
individuals within the organisation. On average, respondents seemed to answer more
positively on the factor of structure. Respondents indicated that they were aware of
their roles and responsibilities in implementing the IQMS. Thirdly, it is the
organisations system of measuring and evaluating performance; the organisation’s
account or control structure. In this study, the “organisation” mentioned above refers
to the individual schools implementing the IQMS. It seems unclear if the DoE can
moderate the results in a one-sided way.
The organisation must be designed to enable individuals to perform their tasks and
hence carry out the desired strategy. The IQMS states that the SMT and SDT work
together on all matters relating to the IQMS and mutually support one another.
5.3.3 Systems
McManus and Botten (2006:14) state that all organisations have at least four types of
resources at their disposal. They are people, financial, physical and technological
resources. With respect to the last resource, not all schools have technological
resources. The learner-to-educator ratio in schools was a problem which indicated
that there were not enough educators. Based on the opinions of the various
respondents, it was found that in most schools educators found it difficult to teach as
there were insufficient teaching aids/ equipment available.
Sterling (2003:27) states that some strategies fail because not enough resources
were allocated to successfully implement them. This research report indicated that
this was a problem for the respondents. A lack of resources is a vital component in
successful implementation of any strategy and this could result in the IQMS not being
effectively implemented.
Raps (2005:141) states that even though studies point out that communication is a
key success factor within strategy implementation, communicating with employees
concerning issues related to the strategy implementation are often delayed until the
changes have crystallised. Question 2.6 and 2.25 indicated that most respondents
either disagreed or were unsure of the nature of communication in their
organisations. This is another aspect that leads to the IQMS not being successfully
implemented.
This leads one to ask the question “how effective is the communication process
within the Mpumalanga DoE as well as between the provincial office, regional office
and the various schools”? Data analysis indicated that there could be a weakness in
communication between the region and the school regarding the formulation of
strategy with respect to the IQMS. Respondents also indicated that the IQMS
objectives are not regularly communicated thus the researcher believes that the
communication process is an aspect that deserves greater attention.
5.3.4 Shared values
Culture, as stated by Thompson and Martin (2005:333), is reflected in the way in
which people within the organisation do their work, set objectives and allocate and
manage resources to achieve the objectives. They state, “culture is at the heart of all
strategy creation and implementation”. One has to ask: “what is the culture of the
Mpumalanga DoE and the various schools?” It seems that there is a culture of
“careful acceptance”. Respondents indicated that they were aware of the IQMS
objectives and that they support it in various degrees. Thus the mandate appears to
be accepted. However, it should be remembered that mandates do not allow for the
various human elements accompanying them and trust, responsiveness, and
emphasis on mutual interests, easy and frequent communication and the acceptance
of mutual control, are not indicated in the discourse of mandate documents. Public
schools thus often engineer arrangements that are “acceptance” in name only (Stott
and Walker, 1999:50 – 59)
5.3.5 Style
According to De Vries (1996) “the most successful strategic leaders perform two key
roles, a charismatic role and an architectural one”. The questionnaire did not ask
sufficient questions on this aspect. This is one of the limitations of the questionnaire.
The researcher believes that a style that facilitates authentic collaboration between
all stakeholders is needed. The researcher accepts that to change to a collaborative
style is no easy task.
5.3.6 Staff
This includes both the people who do the work and the human resource systems that
allow and encourage work to be done, including performance appraisals, training,
motivation and morale.
According to Spangenberg (1994:45), management of performance is an ongoing
process. There are three levels i.e. organisational, processes and team/employee.
This means that goals are set and measured, resources are allocated, feedback and
coaching is provided and effective co-ordination is thus achieved. Respondents
indicated that feedback was not provided on a regular basis with respect to the
implementation of the IQMS. The IQMS was also not designed to measure team
performance, it only measures individual performance.
Armstrong and Murlis (1994:15) state that reward management can contribute
towards achievement of organisational performance through performance
improvement where reward processes can drive and support desired behaviour.
Data analysis indicated that respondents answers ranged from disagree to uncertain
with respect to being fairly rewarded for efforts in implementing the IQMS as well as
the reward structure being linked to performance as per the IQMS. Reward was 1%
of the teacher’s monthly salary and it was not paid during 2006.
5.3.7 Skills
According to Kreitner and Kinicki performance depends on the right combination of
effort, ability and skill. Again, the issue of skill development is advocated in the IQMS.
Respondents answered more negatively on the factor regarding skills. This could
indicate that more needs to be done with respect to training in implementing the
IQMS. When asked if skills are developed on a regular basis, respondents’ answers
ranged from uncertain to agree.
5.9 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
With any research project, the researcher will face a number of limitations. This
research project is no exception and several limitations have been identified. The first
limitation of the study was the amount of time available to conduct the research. This
study was required for the partial fulfilment of the Masters degree in Business
Management. It allows 12 months for the complete research effort and reporting. It is
suggested that more time should be made available for data capturing.
A second limitation was the limited opportunity to meet with all educators and senior
management team members at the same time. A third limitation was the limited
scope of the study. Due to time and geographical considerations, only one
area/region in Mpumalanga was targeted. The study was limited to the various
heads of schools, educators and regional officials situated in the region. The study
did not target all the individuals and structures involved in the implementation of the
IQMS, but offer a representative sample.
The influence of the School Governing Bodies (SGB) is acknowledged, but this study
did not include an analysis of this influence. It was beyond the scope of this study.
The various school principals represent the Head of Department (HOD) in the SGB
and hence he/she is accountable for successful implementation of the IQMS.
Another limitation was in the structuring of the questionnaire. The researcher believes
that a style that facilitates authentic collaboration between all stakeholders in the
school is needed. However, no questions probing this were asked. An analysis of the
questions asked will indicate a bias towards the communication style of leaders.
Effective communication is only one dimension of leadership and the questions in the
questionnaire need to be adapted to reflect this.
This study made use of quantitative research method and only the explanation of
statistically significant differences in factor mean scores between groups could be
seen to be qualitative. A more in depth probing of the perceptions of the respondents
using a qualitative approach where focus group interviews were utilised could
possibly have shed greater light as to why perceptions of implementation differ.
The factor analysis can be a rigorous tool to use in research; however results must
be interpreted with great care.
5.10 CONCLUSION
This chapter identified issues emanating from the research study. The
implementation levers as described by the McKinsey 7-S Framework was used to
investigate the perceived implementation of the IQMS of the Mpumalanga DoE in the
Nkangala region. Strategy, structure, systems, shared values, style, staff and skills
were all shown to be lacking in varying quantities with regards to implementation
levers of strategy. Possible challenges/ pitfalls were also discussed and linked to
findings from the research study.
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The main objective of this research report was to investigate the oerceptions of
educators regarding the implementation of the IQMS of the Mpumalanga DoE in the
Nkangala region. This chapter summarises the main findings from this research
report. The objectives of this study were to explore whether the IQMS objectives are
met; to investigate the perceptions of educators regarding the implementation of the
IQMS; to identify possible gaps in the implementation of the IQMS and to suggest
actions to improve the implementation process. This chapter will also make
suggestions for further research.
6.2 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND MAJOR FINDINGS
6.2.1 Explore whether the IQMS objectives are met.
This research report aimed to explore whether the advocated IQMS objectives are
met. The objectives of the IQMS were discussed according to the various
implementation levers. The first and second objective of the IQMS are to identify
specific needs of educators, schools and district offices for support and development
and to provide support for continued growth (ECLR, 2003). Data analysis indicated
that the larger group of respondents were more uncertain in their belief regarding
strategic planning as a mechanism to identify the needs of educators. There was also
uncertainty regarding the organisational structures and their effectiveness in
achieving the IQMS goal of support and development of educators. Data analysis
indicated that there was uncertainty regarding the systems present to facilitate the
implementation of the IQMS. This could mean that more needs to be done with
respect to the provision of fair procedures, teaching aids and rewards for teaching
performance. Shared values, as one of the implementation levers according to the
McKinsey 7-S Framework that reflects a culture supporting educator development
seemed to need greater attention at regional and school levels. With respect to skills,
as an implementation lever, there was moderate agreement amongst the
respondents that the IQMS was able to identify specific needs regarding support and
development. One of the objectives of the IQMS was to identify such a need (for
skills) so that support and development could be provided.
The third objective of the IQMS was to promote accountability amongst stakeholders.
No statistical significance was found between this objective and the various
implementation levers which are strategy, structure, staff, style, systems, shared
values and skills.
The fourth objective was to monitor the organisations overall effectiveness. No
statistical significance could be found with respect to the following implementation
levers: strategy, structure, shared values and style. The majority of respondents
indicated that the strategic systems regarding the implementation of the IQMS were
not in place and they had a more negative perception of the ability of the IQMS to
monitor organisational effectiveness. It was also believed to a moderate extent that
the skills and abilities of staff had an influence on the extent that the IQMS had
managed to monitor school effectiveness. It appears that the combined skills and
abilities of the staff as an aspect of strategic planning have not been sufficiently
developed so that the IQMS can also serve as a mechanism to monitor school
effectiveness.
To evaluate an educator’s performance is the last objective. The only implementation
lever that indicated a statistical significance with respect to evaluating an educator’s
performance was shared values. The IQMS was designed to measure teacher
performance and the creation of a culture where performance is highly valued is vital.
Based on the above, the perception is that the majority of the IQMS objectives were
not met as intended by the IQMS. With respect to the effective implementation, it was
shown that not all the implementation levers were effectively utilised.
6.2.2 Investigate the perceptions of educators regarding the implementation of
the IQMS by the Mpumalanga DoE in the Nkangala region.
This investigation was structured around the McKinsey 7-S Framework with its seven
strategy implementation levers. With respect to the strategy for implementation,
respondents seemed uncertain. The IQMS has to be implemented at school level and
it is mostly the domain of the SMT with the district playing a supportive role.
Communication about and training on how to implement the actual IQMS is a
problem and needs to be addressed. The responsibility to implement the IQMS was a
joint one and there seemed to be some uncertainty regarding this. It possibly
indicates a lack of effective communication between the Department of Education
and the individual schools regarding the formulation of and IQMS implementation
strategy.
Principals and HOD’s agreed more strongly with the structures for strategy
implementation than did the regional officials. This could indicate confusion regarding
reporting lines and processes. The study indicated that there was uncertainty
regarding the organisational structures and its effectiveness in achieving the IQMS
goal of support and development of educators.
There was also uncertainty regarding the systems available for strategy
implementation. This includes communication, policies and knowledge management.
It appeared that there was uncertainty regarding systems and how it had managed to
identify specific needs of educators regarding support and development.
Educators appeared to be uncertain regarding the shared values in the organisation
and this could indicate a problem regarding effective communication of the common
values and objectives of the IQMS.
A shortage of qualified officials and the large learner-to-educator ratios in schools
were identified as staff issues in this study. Training and feedback regarding the
implementation of IQMS was also a problem. How do you implement something if
you have not been trained on what to implement and there is no feedback when you
implement it?.
There was uncertainty amongst principals and HOD’s with respect to skills . The
respondents indicated an uncertain perception as to whether the IQMS was able to
identify specific needs regarding support and development, which is one of the
objectives of the IQMS.
6.2.3 Possible gaps in the implementation of the IQMS
The study indicated that educators who are at the “chalk face” of the IQMS
implementation are of the opinion/perceive/experience a lack of understanding and
strategy regarding this implementation. Stakeholders not fully appreciating the
strategy was a challenge. The people responsible for implementing the IQMS had no
to very little say in the designing of the IQMS. However, individuals seemed to be
aware of their roles and responsibilities regarding the IQMS. The IQMS manual
clearly advocates the various roles and responsibilities with respect to the IQMS.
Difficulties and obstacles not acknowledged, recognised or acted upon was another
challenge and links directly to the feedback process as the strategy is implemented.
The study indicated that the experience is that feedback was not provided on a
continuous basis with respect to the implementation of the IQMS. Respondents
indicated that there were insufficient teaching aids/ equipment available to perform
their daily activities. Ignoring the day-to-day business imperatives was identified as a
challenge to strategy implementation.
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the gaps identified and the findings from the research study,
recommendations will be made to improve the implementation of the IQMS by the
Mpumalanga DoE.
The IQMS was designed outside the school and yet it has to be implemented in the
school by people who had little or no say in its design. The first recommendation is
that the actual IQMS must be reviewed and widespread participation must be
encouraged. If there is a design flaw in the actual strategy, then no matter how you
implement it, it will fail.
Communication about and training on how to implement the actual IQMS is a
problem and needs to be addressed. This also includes training on how to conduct a
performance appraisal. Organisational leaders must motivate employees toward the
strategic objectives by communicating those goals in a way that is relevant to all; not
just coerce them to participate via a mandate.
Regular feedback on the implementation process is needed. Constant monitoring
and evaluation is essential. Proactive monitoring of the organisation's progress
toward incremental milestones and alerting stakeholders to unexpected outcomes is
important when assessing performance. Operational performance must be measured
in a way that clearly identifies both problems and areas for growth.
Tying the reward structure to the achievement of targeted results is another
recommendation. It is imperative that targets are determined in a fair and transparent
manner and also communicated as such. A collaborative management style should
be encouraged in the organisation. At the end of the day, everyone should work
together to achieve the objectives.
More needs to be done with respect to the provision of fair procedures, teaching aids
and rewards for teaching performance. Shared values that reflect a culture
supporting educator development needs greater attention at regional and school
level. A culture where performance is highly valued must be created and nurtured.
Skills and abilities of staff need to be developed and staff must be empowered to
apply these skills and abilities.
6.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
This research study was based on a convenience sample and it is suggested that a
large random sample of educators at school level be used for further research as
they are the ones at the “receiving end” of the IQMS. For collection of data, this study
made use of a questionnaire only. It is suggested that additional qualitative tools like
interviews and case studies be used to explore issues in greater depth.
It is also suggested that further research should explore and design a strategy
implementation framework that specifically indicates how the IQMS must be
implemented. A review of the actual IQMS is suggested to ensure success during
implementation.
Chapter 6 concludes with detailed findings on all the data reported in Chapter 5. This
chapter reported on the objectives of this research study. It is concluded that not all
the IQMS objectives were met. Some of the gaps in strategy implementation include
that there is not really an effective strategy implementation strategy for the IQMS
present. The chapter concludes with suggestions for further research into the
implementation of the IQMS.
REFERENCES
Aaltonen, P. & Ika°valko, H. (2002), “Implementing strategies successfully”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 415-18. Alexander, L.D. (1985), “Successfully implementing strategic decisions”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 91-7. Armstrong, M. & Murlis, H. (1994). Reward Management – a handbook of remuneration strategy and practice. 3rd edition. London: Kogan Page Atkinson, H. (2006), “Performance measurement in the international hospitality industry”, in Harris, P. & Mongiello, M. (Eds), Accounting and Financial Management: Developments in the International Hospitality Industry, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Atkinson, H. (2006). Strategy implementation: a role for the Balanced Scorecard? Management Decision. Vol. 44 No. 10, 2006. pp. 1441-1460 Atkinson, H. (1990). Creating Culture Change: The Key to Successful Total Quality Management. IFS Publications:
Becher, J.D. (2007). Available from: www.bpmmag.net/magazine/article/html?articleID=14371 (accessed 29 May 2007)
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A. & Spector, B. (1990), “Why change programs don’t produce change”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 6, pp. 158-66. Betts, M. & Ofori, G. (1992). Strategic planning for competitive advantage in construction. Construction. Management. Economy., 10 (6), 511 – 532 Bourne, M., Neely, A., Mills, J. & Platts, K. (2003), “Implementing performance measurement systems: a literature review”, International Journal of Business Performance Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-23. Corboy, M. & O’Corrbui, D. (1999), “The seven deadly sins of strategy”, Management Accounting, November, pp. 29-30. Department of National Education (2005a). Departmental Circular on the Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS) Implementation. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of National Education. (2005b). Education statistics in South Africa at a glance in 2005. Pretoria: Government printer. Denton, D.K. (2001). Mission statements miss the point. Leadership and Organisational Development Journal, 22(7): 309 – 314. De Vries, K. (1996). Leaders who make a difference. European Management Journal, 15(5).
De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (1986). Strategy: process, content, context – An international perspective. West Publishing Co., Minneapolis Dess, G.G., Lumpkin, G.T. & Taylor, M.L. (2005). Strategic Management: creating competitive advantages. 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill/Irwin: New York Drennan, D. (1992). Transforming company culture – getting your company from where you are now to where you want to be. London: McGraw-Hill Dundas, K.N.M., & Richardson, P.R. (1980) Corporate Strategy and the Concept of market failure. Strategic Management Journal 1:177-88 Dundas, K.N.M., & Richardson, P.R. (1982) Implementing the Unrelated Product Strategy. Strategic Management Journal 3:287 - 301 Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) 2003. Resolution 8 of 2003. Pretoria: Government Printer ELRC (n.d) Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS) for School-Based Educators. Available from: http://www.elrc.co.za/UploadedDocuments/IQMS%20Training%20Manual.doc (Accessed 27 September 2007) Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. 2nd edition. London: SAGE Flanagan, N. & Finger, J. (1998). Just about everything a Manager needs to know in South Africa. Cape Town: Zebra Press Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. California: Corwin Galbraith, J.R., & Kazanjian, R.K. (1986). Strategy Implementation: Structure, Systems and Process. 2nd edition. West Publishing Company: St. Paul. Galpin, T.J. (1997). Making strategy work: building sustainable growth capability. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco Ghauri, P. Gronhaug, K. & Kristianslund, I. (1995). Research methods in business studies – a practical guide. New York: Prentice Hall Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M. & Donelly, J.H. (1997). Organisations, Behaviour Structure Processes. 9th edition. McGraw-Hill: USA Gratton, L. (2002). Living Strategy: Putting People at the Heart of Corporate Purpose. London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Gratton, L. (2002). Living Strategy. Available from: http://safari5.bvdep.com/2073650157/d1e94 (Accessed 11 March 2006). Grobler, BR & Mestry, R. (2007). The paradox of performance measurement and collaborative School management. Paper presented at ACEL. October 2007. Sydney: Australia
Groebner, D.F., Shannon, P.W., Fry, P.C. & Smith, K.D. (2005). Business Statistics, as decision-making approach, 6th edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. K. (1994) Competing for the Future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business: School Press. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the post-modern age. London: Cassell. Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2000). The three dimensions of reform. Educational Leadership, April, 2000: 30 – 34 Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. New York: Crowell Publications Heiman, G.W. (2001). Understanding research methods and statistics: an integrated introduction for psychology. 2 nd edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. & Hoskisson, R.E. (2005). Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalisation. 6th edition. Thomson-South-Western: Ohio Hofer, C.W. (1986). Strategy Formulation: Issues and Concepts. 2nd edition. West Publishing Company, St. Paul. Hofer, C., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul: West Publishing Company Hoyle, E & Wallace, M. (2005). Educational Leadership. Ambiguity, Professionals and Managerialism. London: SAGE Hyde, A. (1992). The proverbs of total quality management: Recharting the path to quality improvement in the public sector. Public Management Review, 16(1), 23-37 James, P.T.J. (1996). Total Quality Management: an introductory text. Prentice Hall: UK Johnson, G. & Scholes, K. 1999. Exploring Corporate Strategy: text and cases, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, London Kanji, G.K. & Asher, M. (1993). Total Quality Management Process: a Systematic Approach. Oxford: Carfax Kanji, G.K. & Asher, M. (1996). 100 Methods for Total Quality Management. Sage Publications: London. Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (2004). Strategy Maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (2004b), “Measuring the strategic readiness of intangible assets”, Harvard Business Review, 82(2), 52-63.
Kaplan, R.S. & Norton D.P. (2005). The office of Strategy Management. Strategic Finance. October 2005, 87(4),8-12 Lawler, E.E. (1990). Strategic Pay. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco Lynch, R.L. & Cross, K.F. (1995). Measure Up: Yardsticks for Continuous Improvement, 2nd edition., Blackwell, Oxford. Kreitner, R. & Kinicki, A. (2004). Organisational Behaviour. 6th edition. McGraw-Hill: New York Maddux, R. B. (1988). Team Building. Great Britain: Kogan Page. McManus, J. & Botten, N. (2006). Competitive analysis: Thinking beyond stage one. Management Services. Summer 2006 Miles, R. E. & Snow, C. C. (1984). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mintzberg, H. (1994). The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. New York: Prentice-Hall. Mintzberg, H., Lampel, L. & Ahlstrand, B. (1998a). The strategy safari. London: Prentice Hall. Mpumalanga Department of Education. Available from: http://www.mpumalanga.gov.za/education (Accessed 26 September 2007). Mpumalanga Department of Education. (2007). Annual Performance Plan 2006/07 – 2008/09. Available from: http://www.mpumalanga.gov.za/education (Accessed 26 September 2007) Noble, C.H. (1999). The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research. Journal of Business Research, 45(2),119-34. Okumus, F. (2001). Towards a strategy implementation framework. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 13(7), 327 – 338 Olsen, J.E., & Haslett, T. (2002). Strategic Management in Action. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 15(6) December 2002. Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysing using SPSS. Open University Press: Buckingham Pearce, J.A. & Robinson, R.B. (2007). Formulation, Implementation, and Control of Competitive Strategy. 10th edition. McGraw-Hill, New York Peng, W. & Litteljohn, D. (2001). Organisational communication and strategy implementation – a primary enquiry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(7), 360-363 Peters, T.J. & Waterman, R.H.Jr. (1983). In search of excellence – lessons from America’s best-run companies. Warner Books: New York
Peterson, K.D. (1994). Building collaborative cultures: Seeking ways to reshape urban schools. Wisconsin: North Central Region Educational Laboratory. Pettinger, R. (2004). Contemporary Strategic Management. Palgrave Macmillan, China Price, A.D.F. & Newson, E. (2003). Strategic Management: Consideration of paradoxes, processes, and associated concepts as applied to Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 19(4), 183-191 Quinn, J.B. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism, Irwin: Homewood. Raps, A. (2005). Strategy implementation – an insurmountable obstacle? Handbook of Business Strategy, pp 141 – 146 Regenesys Academic Team. (2007). Strategic Planning and Change Management. Regenesys School of Public Management, Johannesburg. Rossouw, D., Le Roux, S.J. & Groenewald, D. (2003). Strategic Management: An Applied South African Perspective. Cape Town: ABC Press Rycroft, T. (1989). Performance Related Pay: A Public Sector Revolution. London: British Institute of Management. Schein, E.H. (1985). Organisational Culture and Leadership: A dynamic View. Jossey Bass: San Francisco Searle, J.G. (1990). Manage people, not personnel – Motivation and performance appraisal. Boston, Mass: A Harvard Business Review Book. Senge, R. (1999). The Dance of Change. The challenges of sustaining momentum in Learning Organisations. London: Nicholas Brealey Shankar, R., Singh, M.D., Gupta, A. & Narain, R. (2003). Strategic planning for knowledge management implementation in engineering firms. Work Study, 52(4), 190 – 200. Silbiger, S. (1999). The 10-Day MBA: A Step by Step Guide to Mastering the Skills Taught in Top Business Schools. London: Judy Piatkus. South Africa, (1998). The Educators Employment Act Government, No 76 of 1998. Pretoria: Government Printer. South Africa. (2007). Call for comments on the Education Laws Amendment Bill. Government Gazette (No. 29868). Pretoria: Government Printer Spangenberg, H. (1994). Understanding and implementing performance management. Kenwyn: Juta Sterling, J. (2003). Translating strategy into effective implementation: dispelling the myths and highlighting what works. Strategy and Leadership, 3(3), 27 – 34
Stott, K. & Walker, A. (1999). Extending teamwork in schools: Support and organisational consistency. Team Performance Management, 5(2), 50 – 59 Teare, R.E., Costaand, J. & Eccles, G. (1998). Relating strategy, structure and performance. Journal of Workplace Learning, 10(2), 58 – 75 Thompson, J. & Martin, F. (2005). Strategic Management: Awareness and Change. 5th edition. London: Thomson Thompson, A. A. Jr. & Strickland, A. J. III. (2003). Strategic Management – Concepts and Cases. 13th edition. McGraw-Hill. Thompson, J.L. & Richardson, B. (1996), "Strategic and competitive success: towards a model of the comprehensively competent organisation", Management Decision, 34(2) Tomlinson, H. (1992). Performance Related Pay in Education. London: Routledge Van den Berg, P.T. & Wilderom, C.P.M. (2004). Defining, measuring and comparing organisational cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology: an international review, 53(4), 750 – 582 Waterman, R.T., Peters, T.J. & Philips, J.R. (1980). Structure in not Organisation. McKinsey Quaterly (Summer 1980): 2 – 21 Welman, J.C., Kruger, S.J. & Mitchell, B. (2007). Research Methodology. 3rd edition. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
ANNEXURE A
11 October 2007
Dear Sir/Madam
RESEARCH PROJECT ON STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION: REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
Recent studies into the strategic management field indicate that there is a lack of knowledge on
strategy implementation and therefore, more research is essential into this important area of strategic
management. How do we ensure that the strategy is successfully implemented? This question gives
rise to the topic of this research proposal.
An agreement was reached in 2003 to integrate the existing programmes on quality management in
education. The IQMS is informed by the Schedule 1 of the Employment of Educators Act, No. 76 of
1998. The IQMS is an integrated quality management system that consists of three programmes,
which are aimed at enhancing and monitoring performance of the education system. The IQMS of the
Mpumalanga Department of Education is in its fourth year of existence.
The title of the study to which this questionnaire is linked is “An investigation into the implementation of
the Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS) of the Mpumalanga Department of Education in
the Nkangala region”.
The objective of the questionnaires is to establish the perception and thoughts of the respondents
concerning the implementation efforts of the IQMS strategy.
You are kindly requested to assist the researcher with the research project by completing the attached
questionnaire. This research project on strategy implementation is aimed at determining the strategic
alignment between the regional office/department and the various schools in the Mpumalanga
Department of Education in the Nkangala region. The questionnaire will take about 10 minutes of your
time.
Use of results and confidentiality
• The research is being conducted in collaboration with the Department of Business Management
at the University of Johannesburg.
• The results are to be consolidated and published in the form on a Masters Dissertation, without
reference to any of the responding persons.
• All information will be treated as strictly confidential and no information will be released that will
enable anyone to identify you or your specific organisation.
• Should you be interested in receiving a copy of the results of this study, kindly supply your contact
details and postal address?
Return of completed questionnaire
Please return your completed questionnaire to the researcher at the end of the course.
Thanking you in anticipation for your assistance.
Yours sincerely
Julene van Rensburg
General Instructions:
• Please read the instructions carefully as you complete this survey.
• Principles, educators and regional officials should complete this questionnaire.
• Please answer all the questions and respond to all statements as requested.
Section 1: Background information
Please place an “X” in the appropriate box:
1.1 Indicate your primary position within the organisation.
Principal 1
Head of Department 2
Educator 3
Regional official 4
1.2 For how many full years have you worked in your current position? Please indicate the number
below:
1.3 In your opinion, who is responsible for the implementation of the IQMS?
The Mpumalanga Department of Education only 1
The School Management Team (SMT) under the Principal only 2
Both the Mpumalanga Department of Education and the SMT 3
I do not know / I am unsure 4
Please rate each statement according to the following scale by placing an “X” in the appropriate box: 1 = no extent at all 2 = small extent 3 = moderate extent 4 = large extent 5 = very large extent
To what extent do you believe that the IQMS has: No Statement
1 2 3 4 5
1.4 identified the specific needs of educators regarding support and development?
1.5 promoted accountability among educators?
1.6 managed to monitor the effectiveness of schools?
1.7 succeeded in evaluating the teachers performance?
Section 2: Strategy Implementation Please answer the following questions concerning the Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS) as implemented in your school/ office. Note that “organisation” refers to your school if you are based in a school or to your “office” if you are a regional official. Please rate each statement according to the following scale by placing an “X” in the appropriate box: 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = uncertain 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree
No Statement
1 2 3 4 5
Strategy - the actions that your organisation plans, both for the short- and long-term
2.1 I am aware of the IQMS objectives of the organisation.
2.2 The IQMS objectives have been translated into annual objectives in my organisation.
2.3 I have been trained on aspects of strategy formulation.
2.4 I support the IQMS objectives of the organisation.
2.5 I believe that the IQMS objectives of the organisation are attainable.
2.6 The IQMS objectives are regularly communicated to me.
Structure – refers to internal organisational structures (reporting lines) and processes
2.7 I am aware of my role and responsibilities in implementing the IQMS in my organisation.
2.8 My organisation’s structure leads to effective implementation of the IQMS.
2.9 My organisation has sufficient authority / power to implement the IQMS.
2.10 The structure in my organisation allows for open communication.
2.11 The structure in my organisation empowers me to initiate action in the implementation of the IQMS.
No Statement
1 2 3 4 5
Systems - procedures by which an organisation operates, including the collection and disbursement of money, materials and information
2.12 Policies in my organisation ensure equitable and consistent treatment of problems.
2.13 I am fairly rewarded for my contribution towards the implementation of the IQMS.
2.14 Organisational policies prevent me from carrying out my activities in an efficient manner.
2.15 The IQMS ensures a fair allocation of rewards in my organisation.
2.16 My organisation has an adequate budget for implementing the IQMS.
2.17 Sufficient teaching aids/equipment is available to allow me to perform activities in my organisation.
2.18 My organisation has clear knowledge management strategies.
2.19 The reward system in my organisation is linked to performance as per the IQMS.
2.20 I have access to information in my organisation.
Shared values – refers to the culture (work ethic) of the organisation
2.21 The culture in my organisation supports the implementation of the IQMS.
2.22 There is tolerance for different views and opinions in my organisation.
2.23 My colleagues and I share common values in the organisation.
2.24 My colleagues and I are working together to achieve the objectives of the IQMS.
2.25 The culture in my organisation promotes effective communication.
2.26 There is resistance to change in my organisation.
Style – refers to the management style of leaders/direct line managers
2.27 I understand the IQMS used in my organisation.
2.28 My line manager in my organisation is committed to the implementation of the IQMS.
2.29 My line manager regularly communicates the objectives of the IQMS to me.
Staff - the people who do the work and the human resource systems that allow and encourage work to be done, including performance appraisals, motivation and morale
2.30 There are adequate qualified educators/officials per subject area/task in my organisation.
2.31 The learner-to-educator ratio in my organisation supports the effective implementation of the IQMS.
2.32 There is regular evaluation of performance as per the IQMS.
2.33 I have been adequately trained for implementation of the IQMS.
2.34 Feedback with regards to the progress of implementing the IQMS is provided on a continues basis.
Skills - the combined knowledge, skills and abilities of the staff
2.35 Further education and training is encouraged in my organisation.
2.36 My skills are developed on a regular basis in order to achieve the objectives of the organisation.
No Statement
1 2 3 4 5
2.37 I am constantly sent for further development and training on the IQMS.
2.38 My organisation empowers me to apply my skills.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Your effort and
contributions are appreciated.