This article was downloaded by: [Swinburne University of Technology]On: 26 August 2014, At: 08:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Tertiary Education and ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtem20

Developing a quality culture in higher educationMantz Yorke aa Centre for Higher Education Development , Liverpool John Moores University , I M MarshCampus, Barkhill Road, Liverpool, L17 6BD, England E-mail:Published online: 20 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Mantz Yorke (2000) Developing a quality culture in higher education, Tertiary Education and Management,6:1, 19-36, DOI: 10.1080/13583883.2000.9967008

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2000.9967008

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

MANTZ YORKE

DEVELOPING A QUALITY CULTURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

ABSTRACT. Although quality and quality assurance have become embedded into thediscourse of higher education, the development of a quality culture within higher educationhas (paradoxically) lagged behind the implementation of quality assurance practices. Partof the paradox, as far as learning and teaching are concerned, can be attributed to externaldemands which are homeostatic, when the future of higher education seems to be needing aradical commitment to curricular development. This paper sets the development of a qualityculture in a political context, explains the relevance of single- and double-loop learning,argues for a conception of managing for quality, identifies some aspects of institutionaldysfunctioning, lays out some qualities of a learning organisation, and suggests some waysin which institutional leaders might approach the task of developing a quality culture.

THE POLITICAL CONTEXT

The relationship between governments and higher education has changedsignificantly over recent decades, as higher education has increasinglybeen seen in terms of an investment which contributes to nationalprosperity.1 The return on that investment is, as a consequence, a matter ofconsiderable concern to governments - and hence it is easy to appreciatewhy they have become concerned to satisfy themselves that the processesthat students go through are of a sufficient quality to produce the outcomesthat they (the governments) desire.

A primary concern of governments is the employability of graduatingstudents in an economic environment in which people will need to becontinuously prepared to update themselves, and in some cases to changethe direction of their career paths as old opportunities close off and othersopen up. The Dearing Report (NCIHE 1997, paragraph 9.17) emphasisedthe so-called 'key skills' of communication, numeracy, the ability to useinformation technology, and 'learning how to learn'. It can be argued thatthese represent a narrow view of what the graduating student will needto take into the world of work, and that the broader, integrative, notion of'capability' (see Stephenson & Yorke 1998) is a more appropriate basis fora higher education system that is oriented towards the national economy.2

Tertiary Education and Management 6: 19-36,2000.© 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

20 MANTZYORKE

The incorporation of employment-related skills has had a mixed recep-tion in UK higher education. For some, these are perceived as being 'notacademic' and 'not what higher education is about'. For others, there hasbeen no difficulty in seeing these as relevant and appropriate to the stu-dent's experience in higher education. In this diversity of reception onecan see the tension between an elite and a mass system of higher education:the UK is still coming to terms with the transformation from the former tothe latter whereas the US, for instance, has a well-developed mass systemand appears to have little difficulty in giving credit for employment-relatedactivity.

The point of stressing employment-related skills here is that there areconsequences for pedagogy if they are accepted as having an importantrole in curricula. Teachers have to design learning experiences (and assess-ment methods) with such intended outcomes in mind: it is not enough torely on what is, in essence, a transmission of knowledge from the academicto the student.3

The relationship between higher education institutions and govern-ments varies considerably around the world (as do the expectations laidupon higher education), reflecting differences in tradition and state ofdevelopment. For example, in Europe the Humboldtian and Napoleonicapproaches to higher education differ from UK practice. The Nether-lands and South Africa continue with a binary system, whereas Norway,Australia and the UK have moved towards unitary systems. Differencesbetween national perspectives on, and policies relating to, higher educationlead to differences in the way that quality in higher education is construed,and how quality assessment is undertaken.4

QUALITY AND QUALITY ASSESSMENT

The literature on quality emphasises an organisation's responsiveness tothe needs of those whom it serves. This is picked up in the quality vocab-ulary of ISO 8402 which sees quality in terms of "the totality of featuresand characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfystated or implied needs". In this vocabulary there is an emphasis on whathas been provided as a product or service, reflecting the outcome(s) of anenterprise. Something of this perspective is discernible in the approachesto quality listed by Harvey and Knight (1996):

— quality as exceptional;— quality as perfection or consistency (not, one notes, necessarily the

same thing);

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

QUALITY CULTURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION 2 1

— quality as fitness for purpose;— quality as value for money; and— quality as transformation.

The first four are essentially user-determined perspectives on quality: thelast is different, in that it is possible to see within it a strong 'supply-side'component. Given that what staff in higher education put into the develop-ment of student achievement is critically important, one cannot leave thesupply side out of the quality equation. Indeed, a case can be argued thatthere is a moral imperative on a higher educational institution to do themost it can to facilitate the learning of its students (and, of course, to serveits external clients through consultancy and other services). This gives adifferent cast to quality from the prevailing rhetoric, and suggests a power-ful addition to Harvey and Knight's quintet - quality as moral purpose,which is a necessary condition for output quality to be maximised.

In serving their various stakeholders, higher education institutions gainreputations for quality according to perceptions of their performances inthese fields. There is a feedback loop which influences institutional self-perception and hence matters such as morale, which in turn affect theinstitutional culture. (Such reputational cycles, it has to be noted, tend tobe self-perpetuating.)

An institution's performance depends to a considerable extent on itsinternal structure and functioning. An institution which does not work wellinternally will have an extra struggle to achieve optimally in terms of itsintended outcomes. Since higher education institutions vary in the extent towhich they can be termed internally 'loosely coupled' (i.e. the tendency fororganisational units to operate autonomously - see Weick 1976), the rela-tionship between whole-institutional functioning and organisational uniteffectiveness is not straightforward. For the particularly loosely-coupled,the analysis might more usefully be couched at the organisational unitlevel.

A 'quality culture' in an institution reflects not only an orientationtowards the needs of its stakeholders, but also an internality that supportsits staff in the fulfilment of their duties (whether these are internally- orexternally-directed). A consequence of this, not always fully appreciated,is that it places a requirement on managers to add value to the work ofthose who are at the forefront of attempting to satisfy external stakeholders.In this paper, the focus is limited to matters relating to students' learning,though the argument regarding a quality culture applies more generally.

The growth of concern, internationally, to demonstrate the quality ofhigher education's provision for students has pressed institutions in thedirection of greater 'corporateness'. State requirements have led institu-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

22 MANTZYORKE

tions to establish quality assurance units of various kinds, whose role isto ensure that external expectations regarding quality are met. Such unitshelp organisational units and the institution as a whole to recognise thenature of the expectations being laid upon them and to prepare for whateverform of external quality scrutiny is about to be visited on them. Note thata key feature of their work is to identify the overt and the tacit agendasof external scrutiny, and also the implication of compliance with someform of normative expectation. This is tantamount to what Argyris andSchon (1974) described as 'single-loop learning,5 in which a system seeksto solve a problem without questioning whether the right problem has beenposed (the analogy that they make is with a simple thermostat).6

The 'evaluative state' (see Neave 1998) has concerns that are dominatedby political considerations, such as value for money and public accountab-ility. It is relatively unconcerned about the internal workings of institutionsunless something goes seriously wrong, as happened in 1998 in the case ofThames Valley University in the UK.7 However, the growth of externalquality scrutiny is an implicit recognition that governments have beensceptical about the capacity of higher education institutions to regulatethemselves, as far as the quality of the student experience is concerned,and is by extension obliquely an adverse commentary on institutional lead-ership. Had institutions initially shown themselves to be more active (androbust) in self-regulation, it is doubtful whether there would have been aworld-wide perception of a need to establish extra-institutional scrutinysystems.

Extra-institutional quality scrutiny varies considerably in its state ofdevelopment. In South Africa, Poland and the Republic of Ireland, forexample, it is just getting under way, whereas in the Netherlands, theUK and Sweden there is now extensive experience. In Sweden, a cycleof assessments has been undertaken and lessons are being drawn from theexperience (Stensaker 1999; Nilsson & Wahlen 1999). External scrutinysubsumes a variety of aims, amongst which the following are typicallyfound:

— the provision of information to the public and to government;— the rapid improvement of any practice judged to be unsatisfactory;

and— a general stimulus towards the enhancement of curricular practice.

The experience of quality assessment8 in England in recent years hasshown a steady increase in the total points awarded (Baty 1999a, b).9 Thenaive interpretation is that quality has been rising across the system. How-ever, it is unclear from the evidence whether this increase reflects a realimprovement in quality (spurred by the quality assessment process) or to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

QUALITY CULTURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION 2 3

institutions learning better "how to play the game". Personal knowledge ofthe field suggests that the influence of the latter should not be discounted.

Even if the former has been an important influence, it is not apparentthat institutions have made major changes to the ways in which they haveapproached learning and teaching. Much has probably been achieved by"doing existing things better", such as improving the standard of lecturing,giving better feedback to students on assignments, and making better con-nections between expected learning outcomes and assessment methods.None of these should be disparaged, but a broader picture of the future ofhigher education suggests that they will be insufficient in a world in whichdevelopments in communications technology will revolutionise the rela-tionship between the teacher and the student.10 In other words, somethingrather more than single-loop learning is required: there will be a need todo things in a radically different manner in the future. The issue is 'when'rather than 'whether', and is relevant to all higher education institutionswhatever their philosophical grounding.

The proposition being advanced here is that external quality scrutiny is,at heart, homeostatic and, in its current forms around the world, inadequatefor the future needs of higher education (and by extension, of students).11

Interpolating the proposition to institutional level implies that the pos-session of an 'in-house' quality assurance system does not necessarilyguarantee a quality culture. Indeed, it could be antithetical to a qualityculture if the staff perception is that "quality can safely be left to the qualityprofessionals".

MANAGING FOR QUALITY

The word 'for' in the subtitle is important. Barnett (1992) draws the dis-tinction between the ideas of management for quality and management ofquality, illustrating it by using the metaphors of the orchestra conductorand army general respectively. Academics, who by tradition exercise con-siderable autonomy in respect of teaching, necessarily have to assumeresponsibility themselves for the quality of the student experience: at timesthis responsibility is discharged collectively, at times individually. The roleof those with larger spans of authority, such as heads of department, is tocreate conditions within which a commitment to quality (along the linesof ISO 8402, noted above) can flourish. Here the distinction between man-agement and leadership becomes elided, since the evolving expectationsof the higher education (sub-)system require more than a mere seeing thatexisting policies are carried out.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

24 MANTZYORKE

A quality culture requires (tautologically) a widespread commitment toquality and its improvement,12 which in turn requires leadership and man-agement of a high order. It does not arise because of a declaration from theinstitutional leader (as has happened on occasion in the past), but through asustained engagement with the meaning of quality (which is not as simpleas some seem to think), the implications for practice, and the embeddingof 'quality thinking' in practice. Here at least two of the five key elementsof institutional leadership identified by Middlehurst (1993) come into play- clarifying and determining direction, and improving the institutional cli-mate through communication. However, when one drops down to the levelof the department (or organisational unit), it can be argued that the roleof the leader in the UK is changing rapidly, as far as the development ofteaching is concerned, from the rather limited understanding identified byMiddlehurst (1993, pp. 133-134) in her study of leadership in the pre-1992UK universities.

Total quality management [TQM] has been proffered as one way ofmanaging for quality (and of developing a quality culture), particularly inthe US. However, the main exemplifications have come from the area ofinternal servicing rather than from that of teaching and learning. The modelthat often seems to have been adopted is that developed in industry: thesubtle differences when a service environment is the arena of activity seemto have been given little attention.13 The service industry model needsfurther adaptation if it is to be applied to teaching and learning (Yorke1997).

Where TQM has potential - as does much of the writing on quality - isin a belief that quality should be built in at the front of the process, ratherthan 'inspected in' after the event.14 Curricular design, when good, takesinto account a range of considerations, amongst them expected learningoutcomes, the methods most likely to achieve these, and the assessmentapproach most likely to prove a valid measure of student achievement.This cannot be achieved without detailed collegial discussion about endsand means.

The importance of collegial discussion to the development of a qualityculture is evidenced by Napier University in Scotland. The university has,over the past year or so, been developing a learning and teaching strategyfor the whole institution. This has involved staff in an extended series ofdiscussions, but has resulted in a broad agreement on the way forward. Theengagement of 'hearts and minds', which is of critical importance to anymeaningful commitment to quality, has been secured - but it has taken aconsiderable time.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

QUALITY CULTURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION 2 5

In England, the Higher Education Funding Council for England[HEFCE] is expecting institutions to put in place strategies for learningand teaching, and is prepared not to release a proportion of the insti-tutional allocation if these are not produced, and to act similarly if thedeclared strategies are not implemented satisfactorily. For many Englishinstitutions, this will necessitate a short-circuiting of the intra-institutionalconsultation process: the best that can be achieved in such circumstancesis likely to be a provisional document which is acknowledged as being afirst step on the road towards one that commands a more general assent.

Across UK higher education there is a developing debate as institu-tions come to terms with the expectations that are being placed upon themregarding (inter alia) teaching and learning (from the HEFCE initiative[noted above], from the establishment of the Institute for Learning andTeaching,15 and perhaps, very much less directly, from the Economic andSocial Research Council's Teaching and Learning Research Programmeand the UK Funding Councils' research assessment exercise). Institu-tional and departmental leaders are being faced with challenges that manyhave hitherto not been obliged to face. The successful meeting of thesechallenges will require a generally greater level of attention to be givento a 'quality culture' - at a time when all except the most prestigiousinstitutions are under financial stress.

SIGNALS OF THE LACK OF A QUALITY CULTURE

A quality culture, as far as the well-being of students is concerned, requiresthat the institution is committed to, and is effective in promoting, theirdevelopment. If the institution is ineffective in these respects, then it isvery likely that it is lacking a strong quality culture and is experiencingsome internal dysfunctioning.

Cameron and Smart (1998) studied the performance of 332 financially-stressed US institutions with reference to twelve negatively-valencedattributes that had been identified previously by Cameron et al. (1987) instudies of business organisations. They divided the institutions betweenthree performance levels and found that, in general, the worst-performinginstitutions tended to score more heavily on the dimensions of dysfunction(Table I).

These data are not surprising. Cameron and Smart summarise howthe attributes inter-relate to make organisations "rigid, hunker down, andbecome turf-protective" (p. 71):

Organizations become more conservative, and innovation, which is inherently costly andrisky, declines. Communication channels become constricted, only good news is passed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

26 MANTZ YORKE

TABLEI

Differences between institutions under financial stress, by level of performance (Adaptedfrom Cameron & Smart 1998, p. 78.)

Dysfunctional attribute

Centralised decisions

Neglected planning

Declining innovation

Scapegoated administrators

Strong resistance to change

High administrative turnover

Decreasing morale

No place to cut expenditures*

Interest groups more vocal

Low credibility of administrators

Cutbacks not being prioritised

Increasing conflict

Institutional performance level

Low Medium High

N=110 N = l l l N = l l l

+ 0 -

+ 0

+ 0

+ 0 -

+ 0 -

+ 0 -

+ 0

+ 0 0

0 + -

+ 0

+ 0 -

+ 0 -

Significance

of difference

(F-ratio)

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

p < 0.05

p < 0.01

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

n.s.

n.s.

p < 0.05

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

+ indicates the highest mean score (i.e. the greatest level of dysfunction), 0 the middle,and - the lowest. For the asterisked item, the medium and high performance institutionsscored similarly.

upward, and information sharing is attenuated. The emergence of organized, vocal andspecial-interest groups increases the level of politicking and conflict among organizationmembers, so employee morale suffers. A 'mean mood' overtakes the organization. Slackresources (such as contingency accounts, reserves, or new project funds) are eliminated,which sacrifices flexibility and the ability to adapt to future changes. Savings are used tomeet operating expenses. An escalation of centralized decision making occurs where topmanagers increase their control over a decreasing resource pool, and mistakes become bothmore visible and less affordable. Lower-level organization members become increasinglyfearful of making important (or risky) decisions without the approval or signoff of uppermanagement. This centralization leads to scapegoating of top leaders, however, as thefrustrations and anxieties of organization members mount. The credibility of top leaderssuffers because of their implied failure to avoid the painful circumstances the organiza-tion is experiencing. A short-term orientation predominates so that long-term planning isabandoned. (Cameron & Smart 1998, pp. 71-73)

The condition of higher education world-wide is one of financial stress(World Bank 1994; UNESCO 1995) and, if Cameron and Smart's findingscan be generalised across nations, there is a threat of poor performance(including one to the development of a quality culture) in a significantnumber of institutions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

QUALITY CULTURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Governing variables •

27

Perceptions

Adaptationif mismatch

Actions

Consequences

• Single-loop learning

*~ Double-loop learning

Figure 1. Single- and double-loop learning (after Argyris 1999).

DOUBLE-LOOP LEARNING

Argyris and Schon (1974) contrasted single-loop learning with double-loop learning (Figure 1). The former is reactive, accepting the determiningpower of existing governing conditions. Performance is adjusted only if itis found to be out of line with expectations. Double-loop learning rendersthe governing conditions problematic. The primary double-loop learningquestion is not "Are we doing things right?", but "Are we doing the rightthings?" In the context of teaching and learning, the difference would beexemplified in the contrast between seeking to achieve better lecturingfrom the podium (single-loop) and recognising that methods other thanlecturing might produce better student learning (double-loop). In practice,a mixture of single- and double-loop learning is likely to be needed: thingscan be done both differently and better.16

The challenges facing higher education suggest that double-looplearning is an organisational necessity. Without it, an organisation cannotlay claim to being a learning organisation, nor is it likely to be blessedwith success.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

28 MANTZ YORKE

LEARNING ORGANISATIONS

Higher education institutions are concerned with learning, but as organ-isations they are not always as good at learning as one might expect. Anumber of Cameron et al.'s (1987) dysfunctional attributes may contributeto this weakness, and to these may be added the leader's concern to pro-tect his or her position (in an authoritarian institution), self-deception bythe institution's own propaganda, the difficulty of communication acrossorganisational sub-units, and a failure to think systemically.

From the literature and personal experience, an institution is more likelyto be a learning organisation the greater the number of the characteristicslisted in Table II that are present.

The list in Table II is clearly an idealisation, but it does offer a way intounderstanding the extent to which an institution possesses the characterist-ics of a learning organisation (it could be used in a management workshop,for example). What it omits is the politicisation inherent in any institution,since competing interests militate against consensus regarding what shouldbe done. The aim, realistically, is to achieve solutions to problems withwhich most members of the institution can live, even if many would reallyprefer something different. A learning organisation ought to be able toestablish conditions which optimise the satisfaction of both its externaland internal constituencies, recognising that — for longer-term success -the former has to be given precedence.

SOME PRINCIPLES FROM THE LITERATURE ON ORGANISATIONAL

CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT

The literature on organisational change and organisational development isvast. The overwhelming majority of it relates to industrial and commercialconcerns in which chief executive officers have considerable authority andpower. Many in higher education would wonder about the relevance of thisliterature to their own context in which organisational units are often rel-atively loosely-coupled to 'the centre', the powers of heads of institutionsare more circumscribed, and individual academics have a high degree ofautonomy regarding what they do.

Yet - as noted earlier - higher education institutions are having tobecome more corporate in their approach (not least, as far as qual-ity is concerned) as they are faced with the challenges of respondingon an institution-wide basis to opportunities in, and threats from, theexternal environment. Organisational units are increasingly being requiredto demonstrate how their activities are supporting institutional policies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

QUALITY CULTURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION 29

TABLE II

Some characteristics of an idealised learning organisation

A learning organisation...

• is characterised by a shared vision

• prefers to influence events, rather than react to them

• works as a team, recognising diversity of role (i.e. is diverse in its skills and attrib-utes: Belbin's 1981, work on management teams shows that teams composed whollyof high-fliers are not likely to be optimally successful)

• thinks systemically

• avoids short-term 'fixes'

• allows the best idea to prevail, wherever it comes from

• values alternative perspectives, and has the capacity to exploit them (rather thanstifles them)

• accepts that the role of leader may move from person to person, depending oncircumstances, and that this role is not congealed in one person who happens tobe designated the leader

• is characterised by trust

• is honest in its dealings

• respects its members

• knows where its expertise lies, and draws upon it

• fosters commitment, not compliance

• encourages its members to develop their skills for both the individual and thecommon good

• avoids authoritarianism, but not authority

• does not bog things down in committees and the like

• avoids 'game-playing'

• avoids 'defensive routines' (e.g. which might imply support whilst at the same timetacitly denying it)

• does not deceive itself with its own propaganda

• benchmarks its practices

• is reflective with regard to its practice

• has a commitment to improvement, which may be incremental or radical dependingon the circumstances

• crucially (and tautologically), learns from its experiences, individual and collective.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

30 MANTZ YORKE

Though considerable local (and individual) autonomy still exists, thisautonomy is nevertheless constrained. In other words, the organisationalclimate of the higher education institution is edging a little closer towardsthat of the industrial or commercial concern.

With appropriate caution and adjustments, the literature on organ-isational change does offer some useful general pointers to how aninstitution's leader(s) might handle the development of a quality culture,particularly where radical change is envisaged. The principles sketchedbelow, which are primarily based on Argyris (1990), Burnes (1992) andKotter (1996), have a utility value for academic leaders irrespective of thelevel of engagement.17

Develop a vision and a strategy: In higher education, it is unwise for lead-ers to produce these as finished products and to expect others to adoptthem uncritically, since academics tend to (and are expected to) adopt asceptical stance towards matters. It is better to engage colleagues on aproblem-solving consultation exercise in order to gain a broad measureof support for the emergent vision and strategy, as has been happening atNapier University (noted above).

Establish a sense of necessity: Explain why a quality culture is needed, andwhy the issue has to be dealt with now. Kotter (1996) claims that by farthe biggest mistake made in seeking to change an organisation is to pressahead without establishing a sufficiently high sense of urgency across it.

Create a guiding coalition: Assemble a team which has sufficient powerto lead developments. The team should not be composed of senior staffappointed merely because of their rank, but should include others whohave appropriate expertise. It is important that the team does actually workas a team, so the team leader and the members need to be selected withthis in mind. Argyris (1990) points out, as a cautionary note (and personalexperience confirms), that 'the management team' is often a myth. Reli-ance should not be placed on lone champions of change, since they areextremely rarely in a position to have widespread influence (see, in thecontext of educational innovation, Taylor 1998).

Communicate widely and continually ...: A leader is wise to use simpleand direct language. For example, Latin headings in communications to allstaff (as used by one institutional leader) are unlikely to strike much of achord. Nor is 'bureaucratese'.

Once is almost certainly not enough, as far as communication is con-cerned: for all sorts of reasons, people have their attention diverted from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

QUALITY CULTURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION 3 1

the vision and strategy. Reminders, carefully handled, are a good idea. So is'walking the talk' - being prepared to meet with groups of staff and to enterinto dialogue are both evidence of commitment and likely to maximise thepossibility of support.

The leader has to be prepared to be misunderstood. Actions intendedto increase understanding and trust often have the opposite effect, as oth-ers look at the issues from different standpoints. There is a real dangerof assuming that staff will assent to something that is 'self-evidentlyright' (perhaps a Utopian vision), but the world is replete with mul-tiple 'rightnesses'. Organisations are politicised (something which Senge(1992), rather glosses over), and different groups have different amis andobjectives.

. . . and be prepared to listen: The prospect of change almost inevitablybrings difficult issues to the surface. If the change process is perceivedby staff as not taking their concerns into account, then it is less likely tobe successful. It is important to ensure that 'upward communication' ofdifficult issues can take place, and that the concerns expressed are givenfair treatment (this is easy to say but less easy to do, since interpretationsof what is 'fair' will vary).

Develop a shared commitment: Organisational life - and particularly thatin higher education - tends to be 'untidy', and attempts to manage changein organisations need to recognise this. Sometimes people do not behave'reasonably', even when to do so seems incontrovertibly to be in their bestinterest. Human systems do not always cohere particularly well with atechnical-rational approach to change - not least because change tendsto move people out of their individual and organisational 'comfort zones'.As the chairman/chief executive of Levi-Strauss once observed, one of themost difficult things is to unlearn the behaviours that led to past success(see Bennis and Townsend 1996, p. 97).

A shared commitment is not to be confused with clone-like beha-viour. Academics do not fit this model anyway. A shared commitmentto a strategy brings with it the possibility of creative — and productive -tensions: the trick is to balance purposeful and cohesive advance with tol-erance for dissent and new ideas. After all, and as Beatty and Ulrich (1991)point out, in mature organisations a shared mind-set can be a particularliability.

Academics respond differentially to change. Trowler (1998) identified,in a new university faced with changes in curricular structure, how per-sonal response strategies varied: 'sinking' fatalistically; coping with the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

32 MANTZYORKE

change but performing less well regarding other aspects of their work;seeing opportunities arising from within the change; and finding ways inwhich they could reconstruct policy relating to the change. The conversionof strategy into manageable chunks is a good idea, since it is less easy tobury 'the deliverables' in some relatively unspecific assertion regardingthe achievement of a general good that is consistent with the strategicintentions.

Generate some early successes: Success breeds success. The implement-ation of strategy in higher education is complex. Full implementation ofwhat is envisaged could well take a considerable time. Here the advant-ages of breaking down the overall strategy into identified components canbe advantageous. A rolling programme of emphases helps to keep thingsmanageable whilst moving the agenda on. There is a need to ensure thatsuccesses are recognised and rewarded.

Consolidate and embed the gains: 'Chunking' the strategy runs the riskthat once one component has been achieved, it is left to lapse. Achieve-ments must be retained and built into future work. The history of edu-cational innovation is littered with immediate successes that were notembedded by the time the project money ran out, and hence died.

Don't rest on laurels: All the 'quality gurus' point to the need continuallyto re-examine practices, and to strive for improvement. There is alwaysa temptation to declare victory too soon, or to mistake success in a fewcomponents for success for the overall strategy. The leader/manager needsto remember that a garden quickly reverts to a weed-strewn patch if it isleft untended.

A RETURN TO THE POLITICAL SETTING

The political context sets limits to the extent to which an institution caninfluence the variables that govern its operation (and hence engage indouble-loop learning). States have their own agendas, and use a rangeof means to bring about their fulfilment18 — for example, by attachingconditions to funding, creating particular initiatives, and establishing extra-institutional quality scrutiny. Change in these kinds of governing conditioncan really only be achieved through institutions, in concert, engaging thestate in dialogue and seeking to persuade it that there are better ways ofachieving its ends than those currently being employed. The problem isthat a diverse sector, such as that in the UK, may be divided politically andfind it difficult to advance a united view.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

QUALITY CULTURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION 3 3

Extra-institutional quality scrutiny, on the whole, seems to have takena "Theory X' view of institutions (McGregor 1960) in which there is rel-atively little trust in institutions' own commitment to the furtherance ofquality. Under such a view, inspection, control and possibly 'naming andshaming' predominate. The alternative perspective (akin to McGregor'sTheory Y) in which a more benign view of institutional behaviour is taken,is generally lacking.19

Extra-institutional quality scrutiny is concerned more with the presentand the immediate past than with the encroaching future. It is orientedmore towards inspection and control than towards enhancement (Yorke1996a). It is therefore out of step with the general tenor of writings onquality. If states were unambiguously concerned to maximise quality inhigher education, then their approaches to quality would be different, andmore supportive of the development of a genuine quality culture in theinstitutions.

The state "Theory X' perspective does not prevent an institution fromdeveloping as a learning organisation, or from developing a soundly-grounded quality culture: it simply makes such developments more dif-ficult. An alignment between external and (ideal) internal approaches toquality would however have benefit all round. As Milton wrote (though ina rather different context):20

What reinforcement we may gain from hope;If not, what resolution from despair.

NOTES

1 The argument was very clearly expressed in the Dealing Report in the UK (NCIHE1997).2 The argument for capability extends to effectiveness in the whole of a person's life, andnot just that part that relates to employment.3 Those who are committed to lecturing as the primary mode of teaching will find Bligh's(1998) critical appraisal of lecturing to be disturbing.4 For a recent international compilation of articles on quality assurance, see Gaither(1998). Yorke (1999) argues that extra-institutional quality scrutiny should vary with thelevel of maturity of the institution and its ability to demonstrate a robust system of qualityassurance.5 See, for a recent exposition, Argyris (1999, p. 67ff).6 In the context of quality, a similar question obtains where systems of student feeedbackare concerned, since there is a danger that these are used to satisfy external expectationsthat some sort of feedback system should be in operation, without much attention beingpaid to their value for quality enhancement.7 Though the extent to which things had gone wrong, and the origins of the apparent prob-lems, are contested (see Carvel 1999). There is a broader issue relating to problems in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

34 MANTZYORKE

constitutional relationship between the institution's governing body and the institutionalleader, which cannot be addressed here.8 Now termed 'subject review' (QAA 1997).9 Teaching quality assessments are made against six broad criteria, each of which canattract a rating in the range 1 to 4 points.10 See Yorke et al. (1996). A number of authors have enthusiastically pointed out thepotential benefits deriving from developments in communications technology (e.g. Dol-ence & Norris 1995; Daniel 1996; Oblinger & Rush 1997) without giving sufficientattention to the social dimension of the higher education experience, particularly in respectof first-cycle studies.11 See, for a fuller argument to his effect, Yorke (1996a).12 This will extend to assuring itself that anything carried out in its name is reputable,whether this is an extension of its own activity beyond its national boundary (e.g. McKennaet al. 1999) or by franchising out to other providers (Yorke 1993).13 See Morgan and Murgatroyd (1994) for an exposition of how TQM can be applied in aservice context. Holloway (1994) points out a tendency to ignore the implications for TQMof intra-institutional power relationships.14 In fact, the sheer complexity of the educational process means that effort does have tobe put in to monitor whether what was intended to happen actually did so (Yorke 1997).15 Following the Dearing Report (NCIHE 1997), the ILT was established in order to giveadded professional credibility to learning and teaching in UK higher education.16 For a different way of expressing the difference between single- and double-loop learn-ing, see the 'enhancement matrix' described by Yorke (1994).17 For the busy reader, Kotter's book is relatively short, clear and to the point: its 'mes-sages' do need to be translated into the context of higher education, however.18 See, for example, the discussion in Yorke (1996b).19 There is a parallel to be drawn with the national system of quality assurance in schoolsin England. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Chris Woodhead, has been a strongadvocate of inspection and the publicising of failings, whereas his conceptual opponent, theChief Education Officer for Birmingham, Tim Brighouse, has equally forcefully argued thecase for the encouragement of enhancement.2 0 The quotation is from Paradise Lost, Book 1.

REFERENCES

Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming Organizational Defenses. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching Smart People to Learn. Harvard Business Review, May/June,

pp. 99-109.Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Barnett, R. (1992). Improving Higher Education: Total Quality Care. Buckingham: SRHE

and Open University Press.Baty, P. (1999a). A Quality Game Where Cheating is Allowed? The Times Higher

Education Supplement No. 1375 (12 March), pp. 4-5.Baty, P. (1999b). Encounters of an Unfair Kind. The Times Higher Education Supplement

No. 1376 (19 March), pp. 6-7.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

QUALITY CULTURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION 35

Beatty, R.W. & Ulrich, D.O. (1991). Re-energizing the Mature Organization. Organiza-tional Dynamics, Summer, pp. 16-30.

Belbin, M. (1981). Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bennis, W. & Townsend, R. (1996). Reinventing Leadership. London: Judy Piatkus.Bligh, D. (1998). What's the Use of Lectures? Exeter: Intellect.Burnes, B. (1992). Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Develop-

ment. London: Pitman.Cameron, K. & Smart, J. (1998). Maintaining Effectiveness Amid Downsizing and Decline

in Institutions of Higher education. Research in Higher Education 39(1), 65-86.Cameron, K.S., Whetten, D.A. & Kim, M.U. (1987). Organizational Dysfunctions of

Decline. Academy of Management Journal 30, 126-138.Carvel, J. (1999). Sacrificial Lamb? The Guardian Higher (20 July), pp. ii-iii.Daniel, J. (1996). Mega-universities and Knowledge Media: Technology Strategies for

Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.Dolence, M.G. & Norris, D.M. (1995). Transforming Higher Education: A Vision for

Learning in the 21st Century. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and UniversityPlanning.

Gaither, G.H. (ed) (1998). Quality Assurance in Higher Education: An International Per-spective [New Directions for Institutional Research No. 99]. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Harvey, L. & Knight, P.T. (1996). Transforming Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHEand Open University Press.

HEFCE (1999). Performance Indicators in Higher Education [First Report of the Perform-ance Indicators Steering Group, No. 99/11]. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Councilfor England.

Holloway, D.G. (1994). Total Quality Management, the Learning Organisation and Post-compulsory Education. Vocational Aspects of Education 46(2), 117-130.

Kotter, J. (1990). A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. NewYork: The Free Press.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.McKenna, K., Forde, P., Wyber, J. & Crelin, M. (1999). Developing a Quality Review

Process for Offshore Programs. Paper presented at the 21st Annual EAIR Forum, Lund,Sweden, 22-25 August (mimeo).

Middlehurst, R. (1993). Leading Academics. Buckingham: SRHE and Open UniversityPress.

Morgan, C. & Murgatroyd, S. (1994). Total Quality Management in the Public Sector.Buckingham: Open University Press.

NCIHE (1997). Higher Education in the Learning Society [Report of the NationalCommittee of Inquiry into Higher Education]. Norwich, Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Neave, G. (1998). The Evaluative State Reconsidered. European Journal of Education33(3), 265-284.

Nilsson, K-A. & Wahlén, S. (1999). Institutional Response to the Swedish Model of Qual-ity Assurance. Paper presented at the 21st Annual EAIR Forum, Lund, Sweden, 22-25August.

Oblinger, D.G. & Rush, S.C. (eds) (1997). The Learning Revolution: The Challenge ofInformation Technology in the Academy. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014

36 MANTZ YORKE

QAA (1997). Subject Review Handbook, October 1998 to September 2000. Bristol: QualityAssurance Agency.

Senge, P. (1992). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.London: Century Business.

Stensaker, B. (1999). Quality as Discourse: An Analysis of External Audit Reports inSweden 1995-1998. Paper presented at the 21st Annual EAIR Forum, Lund, Sweden,22-25 August.

Stephenson, J. & Yorke, M. (eds) (1998). Capability and Quality in Higher Rducation.London: Kogan Page.

Taylor, P.G. (1998). Institutional Change in Uncertain Times: Lone Ranging Is not Enough.Studies in Higher Education 23(3), 269-279.

Trowler (1998). Academics Responding to Change: New Higher Education Frameworksand Academic Cultures. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

UNESCO (1995). Policy Paper for Change and Development in Higher Education. Paris:UNESCO.

Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosely-coupled Systems. Administrat-ive Science Quarterly 22(1), 1-19.

World Bank (1994). Higher Education: The Lessons of Experience. Washington, DC: TheWorld Bank.

Yorke, M. (1993). Quality Assurance for Higher Education Franchising. Higher Education26, 167-182.

Yorke, M. (1994). Enhancement-led Higher Education. Quality Assurance in Education2(3), 6-12.

Yorke, M. (1996a). Shouldn't Quality be Enhanced, Rather than Assessed? TertiaryEducation and Management 2(1), 86-94.

Yorke, M. (1996b). The Use of Funding to Encourage Quality in Academic Programmes:Some Lessons from Experience, and Their Applicability. Quality in Higher Education2(1), 33-44.

Yorke, M. (1997). The Elusive Quarry: Total Quality in Higher Education. TertiaryEducation and Management 3(2), 145-156.

Yorke, M. (1999). Assuring Quality and Standards in Globalised Higher Education. QualityAssurance in Education 7(1), 14-24.

Yorke, M., McCormick, D. & Chapman, T. (1996). HE 2005+: Towards a Sectoral Strategyfor Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Institutions [A report of a policy-oriented workshop commissioned by the HEFCE]. Bristol: Higher Education FundingCouncil for England.

Centre for Higher Education DevelopmentLiverpool John Moores UniversityI M Marsh CampusBarkhill RoadLiverpool L17 6BDEnglandE-mail: m.yorke@livjm.ac.uk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Swin

burn

e U

nive

rsity

of

Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 0

8:35

26

Aug

ust 2

014