This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
Abstract. This paper reports results of ‘insider research’ at a UK college of higher educa-
tion (NewColl). In drawing on a ‘ground-level’ approach, and building on earlier work
(Newton 1999a,b), it provides insights into ‘front-line’ academics’ views and perspectives
on organisational change and the implementation of quality policy, and points to challenges
for institutional leadership.
The paper begins by considering the impact of the quality revolution on the academiccommunity and its relationships, and then looks at how policy implementation, leadership, and
the management of change can be conceptualised. The case study element consists of profiles
of two academic departments which, in the main body of the research, displayed markedly
more negative responses to organisational change and the implementation of revised quality
assurance arrangements than other academic units. Drawing on interview data which provide
‘thick description’ (Geertz 1973), a set of explanatory concepts is presented which help to
explain why the two schools show themselves to be divergent in comparison with others. These
concepts centre on issues around ‘psychological contracts’ (Handy 1984, 1993); leadership,
communication and the management of change; collegialism and professional accountability;
and reciprocal accountability and mutual trust. The paper goes on to consider the importance
of ‘the discretion debate’ (Lipsky 1976, 1980; Prottas 1978) and proposes that, by stressing
‘ownership’, ‘professional autonomy’, and ‘self-assessment’, quality assurance systems and
quality management in higher education run the risk of exposing or exacerbating the ‘problem’
of discretion for institutional managers and leaders. The paper concludes by identifying a
number of lessons which can be drawn from the case study for quality managers and academic
administrators.
Keywords: discretion debate, factors influencing perspectives of ‘front-line’ academics,
insider research, leadership, management of change, policy implementation, professional
autonomy and accountability, the ‘psychological contract’, quality management
1. Quality in higher education: Impact on the academic community
and its relationships
One of the main legacies of the 1990s is that quality has become a centralconcern in higher education globally. This development has taken place in the
context of a changed relationship between the state and higher education in
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
which demands for accountability have become paramount. Within this there
has been a dramatic increase in student numbers, a sharply reducing unit of
resource, higher student-staff ratios and less funding for books and equip-
ment. In the UK context, in his critique of the introduction of external quality
assessment, Trow (1994) discussed these developments with reference to the
rise of ‘managerialism’ and the withdrawal of the ‘trust’ accorded to higher
education, particularly in the wake of the New Right policies associated with
Thatcherism.
These changes in the context and conditions of academic work (Smyth
1995; Martin 1999), when set alongside the pressures of external account-
ability, managerialism, and a higher level of external scrutiny by external
monitoring bodies, have led the academic community and others to question
whether, with a general movement towards an American-style mass higher
education system, quality can be maintained or managed effectively. It has
led to the acknowledgement that the challenges to institutional leadership in
today’s universities are considerable.There are other dimensions to this debate that have a bearing upon how
we understand the ‘academic community’ in today’s higher education. In
the UK context where, as Harvey (1994, p. 49) puts it, “the British govern-
ment has used managerialism to impose a ‘command economy’ on higher
education”, it is not surprising that many academics have grown increasingly
sceptical of, and resistant to, the growth of the ‘quality industry’ and the
‘quality burden’. For these staff, as for Trow (1994), this is often viewed
in terms of academic de-professionalisation. As this paper suggests, in view
of the extension of the monitoring activities of external quality bodies, and
the development of ‘robust’ internal quality monitoring arrangements, there
is no doubt that increased accountability and ‘intrusion’ have presented asignificant challenge for institutions and staff at all levels. For many ‘front-
line’ staff this has led to suspicion of management motives, to the breakdown
of reciprocal accountability and trust, and perhaps even to an irresolvable
tension between the ‘corporation’ and the ‘collegium’. For senior managers
it has led to increasing challenges in terms of leadership and institutional
management.
2. Conceptualising policy implementation, leadership and the
management of change
It is now commonplace to depict and conceptualise the university as an‘organisation’. As Weil (1994, p. 24) noted in her discussion of the emergence
in higher education of what were then relatively new notions of organisation
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 187
and management: “Five years ago, to refer to a university or college as an
‘organisation’ ran contrary to the deeply embedded currents of professional
autonomy and ‘collegiality’ in decision making”. But higher education has
moved on from McNay’s ‘collegial academy’ (McNay 1995), or the ‘tribes
and territories’ portrayed in Becher’s academic community (Becher 1989).
However, as Wilson (1992) observes, in much of the organisational change
literature it is the management of change rather than the analysis of change
which predominates. For Burnes (1996), such approaches are open to criti-
cism due to “their limited applicability to the range and complexity of
situations found in everyday organisational life” (p. 110). A linked issue
when analysing change is the extent to which change processes should be
viewed as ‘planned’ or ‘emergent’. In this paper, following Burnes (1996),
the emergent approach is viewed as attractive since it “stresses the developing
and unpredictable nature of change” (Burnes 1996, p. 187). It recognises
that some organisations “operate in a turbulent, dynamic and unpredictable
environment . . . to which they continually have to adapt” (p. 194).It follows that one of the principal messages of my research is the
importance of context for the management of policy initiatives. What is
achievable with ‘quality’ in a higher education organisation should not be
seen as a blank sheet. The size, stage of development, strategic priorities,
blend of organisational politics, and even the particular vulnerabilities of
a college, are key considerations. They represent a complex combination
of constraint and opportunity. This raises questions around whether organi-
sations are manageable entities. Some insights into this are afforded by
considering the notions of ‘culture’, ‘cultural change’ and ‘organisational
culture’. ‘Culture’, it is argued, should be viewed pluralistically; ‘organisa-
tional culture’ entails competing value systems and should be viewed associally constructed by actors rather than merely enacted by members of an
organisation. Indeed, there are dangers in viewing organisations as entirely
rational entities. Moreover, my research confirms that it is prudent to avoid
uncritical notions of the manager as ‘change hero’, or as the sole determinant
of change.
Context and circumstances are also key considerations when conceptual-
ising leadership. As Middlehurst (1991, p. 3) suggests: “Leadership is linked
both to a context and a constituency, it is commonly viewed as a contingent
construct”. Following Adair (1983), Middlehurst (1997, p. 188) also notes
the “symbiotic relationship between change and leadership”. Drawing atten-
tion to Adair’s (1983) observations on changing contexts, uncertainty and
instability, Middlehurst observes that: “The existence and the experience of a turbulent environment . . . creates both a psychological and a practical need
for leadership” (p. 188).
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
Distinctions are drawn in the literature between ‘leadership’, often
portrayed as vision, direction and institutional strategy, and ‘management’,
depicted as policy execution and competence in particular functional areas
(Partington and Brodie 1992, p. 3; Middlehurst 1991, p. 10). However, it
is not intended in this paper to explore the debate around definitions and
distinctions between leadership and management. A more pragmatic view
is taken. Accordingly, with Ramsden (1998, p. 107), it is suggested that
‘leaders’ are also ‘managers’ and, following Ramsden (1998), ‘leadership’
is used as shorthand for ‘leadership and management’.
3. Case study: Profile of two academic departments
3.1. Institutional project: Development and implementation of a quality
assurance system
The context for the study has been reported more fully elsewhere (Newton
1999a,b). For present purposes relevant features can be gleaned from the
rationale underpinning the organisational change and policy initiative at the
research site, a higher education college (NewColl). The project involved
developing quality assurance procedures to enable NewColl to enable it to
fulfil its vision of achieving ‘University College’ status. The college had been
established as a higher education corporation in 1993. The development aims
of the project centred around the task of reconciling the tension between the
demands of accountability and those of improvement. This posed a consid-
erable challenge in terms of quality management, the management of change
and institutional leadership.
3.2. ‘Insider research’ project
In addition to acting as project manager for the design and implementa-
tion of quality assurance systems, I was also, simultaneously, conducting a
longitudinal, ethnographic study of the college. The research aims included
investigation of whether, in the view of external quality monitoring bodies,
and academic and academic support staff, the purposes of the quality assur-
ance system had been met; whether internal and external accountability
requirements had been satisfied, and quality improvement facilitated for staff
and students.
A range of methods and data sources was used to convert ‘thin’ into ‘thick’descriptions (Geertz 1973, ch. 1) and to provide insights into staff perceptions
of the achievements of quality assurance procedures and how these compared
with official views of external quality monitoring bodies. The methods were:
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 189
− five-year ‘close-up’ ethnographic study and reflective practice
− questionnaire survey of academic managers and ‘front-line’ academic
staff
− tape-recorded interviews with individuals and focus groups
− desk research and analysis of institutional documents and external
quality reports
3.3. Profiles of two ‘deviant’ schools
The empirical focal point in this paper is provided by two academic units
(School A and School B) which, in the results of the main body of the
research, displayed markedly more negative questionnaire and interview
responses on a number of issues in comparison with other Schools. This
polarisation related to several issues, principally:
− views on the mechanics and technology of NewColl’s quality system
−the extent to which it was seen as delivering improvements for staff andstudents
− views generally on organisational change at NewColl and elsewhere in
the higher education sector in the UK
This divergence required explanation and this is dealt with later in the
paper where factors influencing academics’ views of higher education policy
and change are discussed through identification of a series of explanatory
concepts.
To give background detail, and to assist the assessment and evaluation
of the case study elements, the paper provides a profile of each of the two
academic departments. Each of NewColl’s constituent elements brought its
own cultural elements into the incorporation process in 1993. Pre-1993, each
had its own distinctive identity. Only School A, with an education and human-
ities portfolio, and located initially during the study period on its original
college of education campus, had a strong background history in higher
education; School B’s higher education background had been focused, prior
to 1993, on non-degree, Business and Technology Education Council (BTEC)
higher national diploma provision.
School A
School A, particularly the education element, displayed several character-
istics which set it apart from other schools. As a college of education, this
unit had proceeded through several crisis periods in which teacher educa-
tion provision at NewColl had been under threat. The school, and the formerfaculty and college of education in which it had its origins, had a long track
record of links with NewColl’s somewhat traditional and conservative valid-
ating university (UVal), both in terms of curriculum development and course
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
validation. Therefore, its history and experience of quality was that of a less
intrusive, almost ‘cloisterist’ (Harvey 1995a), collegial-style approach. This
background may go some way towards explaining the School’s less positive
view of progress made with the implementation of NewColl’s new quality
assurance arrangements. Thus, paradoxically, while staff in the education
area were in some senses more mature in relation to quality, and more used
to being inspected externally, they were also less willing to accept a new
centralised system along with the transparency and internal accountabilities
that went with it – especially as that system was associated with a central
administration long held in suspicion by former college of education staff. For
them, a college-wide system was an additional system signifying duplication
and an unwelcome extra burden.
A strong feeling, on the part of ‘front-line’ academics, of neglect by
‘the centre’ and by NewColl’s senior managers, had been compounded by
negative staff feelings towards the School’s own senior managers. Also, prob-
lems of location meant that communication on new institutional initiativestook longer to filter through. Geographical separation had also led to some-
thing of a ‘siege mentality’ on the part of the senior staff in the school as well
as its teaching staff.
These leadership and communication issues were also compounded in this
school by the presence of a number of academic staff who for a prolonged
period had been seriously disaffected from both department and college. The
Head was confronted by problems and personalities which were intractable
and which were only ‘resolved’, effectively, when staff left or took early
retirement.
From such circumstances it is possible to distil a combination of situ-
ational factors which appear to have influenced staff responses to change ingeneral and attempts to embed a new quality assurance system in particular.
Firstly, leadership and communication. Secondly, the presence of a significant
number of individual members of staff opposed to change initiatives and who,
in the view of their middle managers in the School, had remained largely
unaccountable for far too long. Thirdly, a number of resource-related and
communication issues stemming from a period during which a site reloca-
tion was being planned for. Fourthly, a point was reached when staff of the
School began to recognise the efficacy of the new quality assurance systems,
since both external and internal quality monitoring reports were beginning to
expose the deficiencies in the professionalism and performance of some staff
and, by implication, were raising questions about the way that professional
autonomy and discretion were being exercised.
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 193
and you think, hey, that was nice. Never from management do you get any
comment about trying hard. I mean you may not have got it all right all
the time but most people are not skiving and they’re doing their best and
just an acknowledgement of that goes a long way (p. 24).
Such comments resonate with what Ramsden (1998, p. 76) refers to as
“recognition of teaching and staff morale”, or what Shore and Roberts (1995,
p. 13) describe, rather more uncompromisingly, as a sense of “permanent
institutionalised angst” felt by some lecturers. Ramsden (1998, p. 76) argues
that “a critical aspect of staff alienation from their universities is their feeling
of lack of reward and recognition for academic work, especially teaching”.
In the second example Respondent 42, a course team member in School
A, indicated that management at school and college level had neglected to
attend to small but important matters which could have served to maintain
staff morale and commitment. Though acknowledging being caught between
“the Scylla of financial constraints and the Charybdis of political interferencein the shape of the course and its implementation” (p. 42), nevertheless:
Having said that, I think it’s all too easy for financial constraints to be
used as the sole reason for poor quality. They [the financial constraints]
are so irritating, on daily basis . . . that they inevitably loom large and it’s
foolish of management to have allowed this to happen, when some fairly
small-scale funding would alleviate the problems (p. 42).
Respondent 41, a retired Vice Principal from another college, drawing on
experience of leadership and management at his own institution and on expe-
rience as an institutional quality auditor in the wider academic community,
attached great importance to such matters as those alluded to in theseexamples; particularly in respect of the quality of the work situation of
academic staff and how this might affect their commitment to the organisa-
tion. He locates this in the broader context of the underlying purposes of
an institution’s quality system and the danger that systems can become self-
serving unless they are perceived as being associated by staff with genuine
attempts to seek improvements for staff and students. He argues that:
There are three, I suppose, basic anxieties about quality assurance
systems. There’s the question of The . . . purposes served, the kinds of
processes and structures adopted and the difference they make to insti-
tutional performance and I think that . . . in terms of the purposes served,
you want to seek an improvement to the deal offered to the students andthe quality of working life of staff. I mean those are the two things that
I think are important . . . the quality of provision of service to students
and the quality of working life for staff, so that as well as the contract of
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
service, there’s also a psychological contract that makes them committed
to the organisation (p. 41).
Such responses imply that, for some at least, ‘quality’ becomes a ‘bolt-
on’ extra, not the foundation on which other activities are built. As Harvey
(1995a) points out: “Quality systems are seen as increasing work-loads and
administrative burdens on teachers who are already expected to do more”
(p. 131). This is hinted at in the following exchange:
Respondent 24:
I’m not as directly involved in it now as I was a year or two back. I’m
just doing my small bit in the Year Tutor way . . . I could see a lot of
plusses to the system but in practice now after its been running for a
year or two I think we’re just finding the quickest way around it, a lot
of the time, which may not be a bad thing (p. 24).
Researcher:
Was that because you suspect that other people aren’t doing it or aren’t
taking it seriously?
Respondent 24:
I think there is a feeling about others getting away with it (p. 24).
Respondent 26:
I think there’s also the feeling that however many times you weigh the
pig, it doesn’t get any fatter. There is an element there that, you know,
no matter how much you put into this quality assurance system, at
the end of the day the pig is getting thinner and thinner. You learn
to work with less, in worse working conditions, and I think that
does encourage you to think, well, do I really need to put so much
energy and effort into this when we are working in, I think, decreasing
working conditions and decreasing resources (p. 26).
Two observations are offered on this exchange, concluding as it does with
an air of resignation on the part of Respondent 26. Firstly, we are alerted toMiddlehurst’s (1997, p. 54) warning that “overconcentration on ‘rendering
an account’ to external audiences can take time and resources away from
delivering high-quality education . . . or finding out the real needs of students
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
They have to find their own meaning in these changes before they can live
with them. Hence the reformers must listen as well as explain . . . If they
impatiently cut this process short, their reforms are likely to be abortive.
Becher (1992) draws on Bailey’s (1973) study of the effects of change
in peasant studies to illustrate the position which the notions of academic
autonomy and professional discretion hold in academic life. Bailey (1973,
p. 8) observes that “the more ramifying the expected consequences of
introducing an item into a system, the more difficult is likely to be its
acceptance”.
The views of Respondents 60 and 45 were not shared by all in School
B however. Respondent 18, the School B quality coordinator, and therefore
more open and committed to new quality assurance arrangements, took a
rather longer term perspective on matters and also viewed past practice in
a different light from some of her colleagues:
I think [the quality system] has gone some way to finding out the people
who only ever paid lip-service to team-working and, therefore, in the short
term has somewhat fragmented course teams. However, we are almost at
the stage where quality requirements are accepted as a necessary part of
the system so we ought to emerge with a different type of team eventually
– one that is more coherent (p. 18).
4.4. Reciprocal accountability and mutual trust
Quality systems incorporate a strong emphasis on the need for front-line
workers to fulfil their responsibilities. As Harvey (1995a, p. 29) notes, imple-
mentation of a quality system carries with it implied criticism of the quality
of academics’ work and a lack of trust. Indeed, the HEQC case studies
‘Managing for quality’ (HEQC 1995a) reveal that a range of negative rein-
forcement tactics may be used in higher education institutions to secure
change. These include “threats” such as penalties arising from teaching
quality assessment or professional accreditation, “increased central monit-
oring, increased pressure to conform, and appealing to rules and regulations”
(HEQC 1995a, p. 158). Moreover “the range of approaches used is likely
to vary depending on the individuals involved, the scale of change and the
timescale for implementation” (p. 158).
In view of these observations the comments of Respondent 41 are of
particular interest. He referred to the “very important principle of reciprocalaccountability” and the importance for him, noted earlier, of conveying “a
sense of mutual responsibility for the quality of provision for the students”
(p. 41), with staff at all levels, from course team to senior management
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
Yes, it’s [name of Vice Principal (Planning and Resources)] – there’s
no secret about it (p. 26).
Respondent 26:
And you can stand that for so long but the demoralising effect over
a period of time is very real and I wonder, apart from anything else,
well what is the motivation behind this? What are you trying to do?
So then, when you think about quality assurance, and working hard
in the classroom – well what’s the point, if you don’t feel there’s
any support. And there’s also anecdotal stuff, you know, needless
things have been said and when things should have been said to
support staff, they haven’t been. It doesn’t cost a lot to say, [name
of researcher] you’re doing a good job. I don’t remember anyone ever
saying anything to any of us, not to me anyway, you know, “that was
good” (p. 26).
While the circumstances described are very real, it would be quite inaccurate
to imply that these references to extreme behaviour represent a common or
characteristic feature of the organisation’s culture, or the management styleof all its senior managers. Indeed, as Trowler (1998, p. 28) implies, in under-
standing organisations we need to take account of different levels, contexts,
people and so on. Nevertheless, it is apposite to heed de Vries’s (1997, p. 53)
observation that, from the point of view of the ‘rational quality management
model’, there is an implication that “the managers do not trust the academic’s
in their institutions to deliver quality products”.
These examples are not cited from a naive or unrealistic understanding
of organisational complexity; it is more a matter of heeding Ramsden’s
(1998) observations that “academic culture presents many opportunities for
misunderstanding and conflict between leaders and academics” (p. 110) and
that:
Just as good teachers actively listen to their students, so good academic
leaders listen to what their colleagues say about their experiences of the
academic environment and academic leadership (p. 80).
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 207
effect. Institutional managers, by the same token, need to take full account
of the role that discretionary behaviour plays in the policy implementation
process.
While acknowledging that increased accountability, greater transparency,
and intrusion have presented significant challenges for staff at all levels,
and may produce mistrust of management and negative responses to change
initiatives, the paper raises questions around professionalism, professional
autonomy, and accountability, and points to the problematic nature of discre-
tion and professionalism amongst ‘front-line academics. By connecting with
the ‘discretion debate’, and by indicating the important position held by
academic autonomy and professional discretion in academic life, it is possible
to show how the exercise of discretion by front-line academics may serve
to distort official, institutional policy goals and intentions. Moreover, it is
argued, quality assurance systems in higher education, by laying emphasis
on ‘ownership’ and ‘professional responsibility’, may actually run the risk of
exposing or even exacerbating the ‘problem’ of discretion from the point of view of institutional managers and leaders.
The paper also serves to remind quality managers in higher education and
advocates of transformative concepts of quality (Harvey and Knight), who
emphasise the desirability of ‘quality enhancement’ and ‘continuous quality
improvement’, that it is advisable to take full account of the constraints and
circumstances of situation and context which influence both policy imple-
mentation and the activities of key actors or ‘system-users’ in changing or
re-shaping quality policy. By focusing on a particular work environment
the research reported on here has revealed much needed insights into issues
around the implementation of quality policy, and how key actors receive and
respond to policy and change in higher education organisations.Given that there is a shortage of research into the development and opera-
tion of policy within specific organisational settings in higher education, then
insights drawn from research into day-to-day life in universities which might
inform the practice and performance of quality managers are much needed. A
number of lessons for academic administrators and academic managers with
responsibilities for quality management can be drawn from this paper.
Firstly, there is a difference between the planned outcomes of policy and
those which emerge through implementation. This means that ‘quality policy’
is changed in the implementation process and that any quality management
system or change initiative will always be impacted upon by situatedness.
Arguably, the ‘real makers of policy’ are policy users. In other words, my
findings provide evidence that staff, especially front-line academics, do notmutely accept change or the particular demands of quality assurance policy or
systems. Policy implementation is complex and uneven. Through their own
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP 209
hero’, or as the sole determinant of change. There are no simple prescriptions
for managing change in complex circumstances.
Fifth, to be able to manage change effectively institutional leaders and
managers should assess the current and emerging climate of operation. This
means paying attention not only to the preoccupations of key external stake-
holders and regulatory bodies, and what they bring to bear at any one point in
time, but also to the values and expectations of staff within an institution. In
turn, this focus on ‘climate of operation’ points to a further area of considera-
tion alluded to in this paper, which again has a bearing on the management of
change in quality assurance matters and from which a lesson can be drawn.
It is advisable for quality managers to pay attention to the alignment between
‘the realities of context’ (the immediate institutional ‘climate of operation’)
on the one hand, and the ‘philosophy’ or ‘quality culture’ underpinning a
quality system, and the ‘technology’ or the ‘quality system’ itself, on the
other hand. The general application of this in quality management is that, by
giving consideration to alignment with prevailing circumstances it is possibleto ascertain what outcomes are most likely from what combination of external
and internal constraining forces and opportunities, and also what approach
to quality management and leadership might be most appropriate. Here, the
pace of change is an important consideration, as is how this is negotiated
and managed. Quality managers, indeed managers generally, need to be
equipped to provide leadership and should take time to explain change on
an incremental basis. These matters relating to alignment with context have
an important bearing on both the design and the implementation of a quality
assurance system.
Finally, in attempting to avoid the problems and limitations of a ‘top-
down’ managerialist approach, it is evident from this paper that it is bothpossible and desirable to tap into the ‘inner workings’ and ‘inner life’ of
higher education institutions and to penetrate the discourses and activities of
academics at all levels, and to learn something of how these combine to shape
their role in the policy arena. Such a perspective is indispensable to those
managers and administrators who are committed to paying close attention
to the preoccupations and predispositions of a college’s staff when change
initiatives are being planned. This then affords a more rounded understanding
not only of how innovations or changes are adapted to fit the ‘local setting’,
but also how system users adapt to the innovation.
References
Adair, J. (1983). Effective Leadership. London: Pan.
Adler, M. and Asquith, S. (1981). Discretion and Welfare. London: Heinemann Educational.
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership
Jackson, N. (1997). ‘Academic regulation in UK higher education: the concept of collaborative
regulation’, Quality Assurance in Education 5(3), 120–135.
Jackson, N. (1998). ‘Academic regulation in UK higher education: part III – the idea of
“partnership in trust” ’, Quality Assurance in Education 6(1), 5–18.
Johnson, T. (1972). Professions and Power . London: Macmillan.
Johnson, T. (1990). ‘Thatcher’s professions: the state and the professions in Britain’. Paper
delivered at the World Congress of Sociology, Madrid.
Leigh, A. (1988). Effective Change: Twenty Ways to Make it Happen. London: Institute of
Personnel Management.
Lipsky, M. (1976). ‘Toward a theory of street-level bureaucracy’, in Hawley, W.D. and Lipsky,M. (eds.), Theoretical Perspectives on Urban Policy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services.
Beverley Hills: Sage.
7/27/2019 Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership