Strength of weakness – quality managers as agents of multiple principals

Abstract

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.

Internal quality assurance units: empirical evidence from Italy

“…It is precisely this micro dimension that is essential for building accurate operational processes, which take into account the needs of the various operators and to foster the hybridisation function of QA systems between external accountability and internal accountability, between academia and administration, between students and professors, between community demands and internal university logic. In this respect, the findings are in line with the work of Seyfried and Reith (2021) on Germany, which states that internal QA plays a mediating role between multiple principals' divergent interests by carving out its own space of autonomy in the midst of this negotiation process.…”

“…The focus is here on the interaction among actors considered as critical in shaping QA processes. It is worth to mention here the work of Seyfried & Reith (2021), which extend the discussion by addressing the role of quality managers as agents of multiple principals who not only act as agents of the university academic top management but have multiple other principals such as the administrative structure of the university, the students, the subject areas and their needs, the national accreditation agency. The presence of several principals opens a space of opportunity for the responsible for quality assurance processes to customise their set-up and operations and thus position themselves among the various principals by strengthening their role.…”

“…The prevailing institutional perspective, which considers quality assurance as an induced and exogenous mechanism (Elken adn Stensaker, 2018;Martenson et al, 2014) can be enhanced by considering an internal perspective in universities that can take into account both the ways in which universities develop and structure quality assurance and the dynamics that internal organisational units dealing with quality assurance develop in their relationship with other actors inside and outside the university (Seyfried and Reith, 2021). This paper addresses this strand by acquiring empirical evidence from the Italian case.…”

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

“…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).…”

The Sequence of Isomorphism—: The Temporal Diffusion Patterns of Quality Management in Higher Education Institutions and Hospitals

“…This is not only related to the different interpretations of quality (for an overview, see Harvey & Green, 1993;C. A. Reeves & Bednar, 1994) but also related to particular practices (Seyfried & Reith, 2020). Nevertheless, both practitioners and researchers associate various core elements with QM, such as management leadership and commitment to quality, quality strategic planning, human resource training, participation and support, information and data management, organizational coordination, and structures that facilitate QM throughout the organization, supplier management, and process management (Macinati, 2008).…”