The seven deadly sins of quality management: trade-offs and implications for further research

Seyfried, Markus; Reith, Florian

doi:10.1080/13538322.2019.1683943

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Do multiple principals contribute to increased levels of agency loss? How does agency loss contribute to the overall teaching performance of an organisation (De Vincenzi, Garau, & Guaglianone, 2018) and why do some quality management systems perform better than others and with which goal conflicts are they confronted (Seyfried & Reith, 2019b)? However, the concepts of multiple principals and pivotal agency may contribute to a better understanding of quality management in teaching and learning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strength of weakness – quality managers as agents of multiple principals

Seyfried

Reith

2020

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper investigates quality management in teaching and learning in higher education institutions from a principal-agent perspective. Based on data gained from semi-structured interviews and from a nation-wide survey with quality managers of German higher education institutions, the study shows how quality managers position themselves in relation to their perception of the interests of other actors in higher education institutions. The paper describes the various interests and discusses the main implications of this constellation of actors. It argues that quality managers, although they may be considered as rather weak actors within the higher education institution, may be characterised as having a strength of weakness due to diverging interests of their principals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strength of weakness – quality managers as agents of multiple principals

Seyfried

Reith

2020

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, a mixture of collegiality and competition in academia seems to be transferred to the reasons for the introduction of quality. Compared (and related) to the results of other studies, this, as mentioned above, may inform our understanding of possible trade-offs, such as quality and control (Chu and Westerheijden, 2018;Seyfried and Reith 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

Winds of change? Academics’ views on the introduction of quality management in Kazakhstan

Manarbek

Seyfried

2022

QAE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Academics’ perceptions of the motives of the introduction of quality management are still rarely investigated, particularly in Central Asian countries. Thus, this paper aims to understand the internal dynamics of organisational change within higher education institutions. Design/methodology/approach The paper presents evidence from an online survey of academics from three Kazakh national universities. Their perceptions are presented with a quantitative descriptive approach using means and standard deviations. Findings The results show that academics perceive institutional (e.g. regulations, professional standards, existing norms, etc.) and instrumental explanations (e.g. institutional learning, improvement, intra- and inter-organisational competition, etc.) of the introduction of quality management as equally important. This contradicts existing evidence from surveys of other groups within higher education institutions. Originality/value In addition to evaluating the literature, the paper combines institutional and instrumental reasons for the introduction of quality management in Kazakh universities. Taking a perspective centred on academics, the results indicate that scholars’ assessments reveal a comparatively low variance regarding the importance of quality management. Based on these results, the paper suggests that empirical studies need to be broadened with comparative perspectives from different organisational contexts, groups and administrative traditions.

show abstract

“…It is a role with a specialist higher education identity which is de jure and not de facto (Macfarlane, 2011); HoQs need to make judgements -or, as a minimum, to define the infrastructure through which judgement will be reached -about whether (for example) institutional practice meets national expectations on academic matters, drawing on a range of specialist knowledge. The role is also contested, since academic staff may be critical of those who have invaded decision areas which were once their 'secret garden' (Shattock, 2017: 390; see also Rowlands, 2018;Seyfried and Reith, 2019). In an organisation where management structure may not be aligned to current or prospective needs (Campbell-Perry, 2022), there is a greater need for boundary-spanning roles (Zahir, 2010), so the HoQ is an agent of multiple principals, including senior management, academic staff, students and others within the central administration (Seyfried and Reith, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making it work in practice: how heads of quality negotiate the third space

Renyard

2024

London Review of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent decades have seen increasingly complex external regulation applied to higher education providers. This has accentuated the role of heads of quality, who require considerable specialist knowledge and insight to ensure that organisational practices align with regulatory expectations. However, while the existing literature recognises that heads of quality do not perform a uniform role, it does not typically discuss the key organisational features which explain the differences in the role or necessarily position of heads of quality as third space professionals. Drawing on a comparative case study of three universities, the article extends our understanding by confirming that heads of quality can legitimately be termed third space professionals and by showing that heads of quality must navigate their environment in different ways according to the degree of access to the third space offered by their organisation. A more structurally situated explanation of third space activity is thus required. The article also reflects on the tendency to discuss a particular group of third space professionals and to characterise their experience as though it were broadly common. It argues for a more nuanced explanation, taking account of organisational structure as a further variable which may help to explain the experience of the third space professional.

show abstract

The seven deadly sins of quality management: trade-offs and implications for further research

Cited by 12 publications

References 54 publications

Strength of weakness – quality managers as agents of multiple principals

Strength of weakness – quality managers as agents of multiple principals

Winds of change? Academics’ views on the introduction of quality management in Kazakhstan

Making it work in practice: how heads of quality negotiate the third space

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About