1. 1 Navigating the archipelagos of Greek Universities: leadership, quality management, and reforms Antigoni Papadimitriou CHEPS/University of Twente & Aristotle University, Greece Don F. Westerheijden CHEPS/University of Twente, The Netherlands 31st Annual EAIR Forum 23 to 26 August 2009

2. 2 CONTENTS  Objectives of the Study  Surveying Leaders via MBNQA Criteria  Findings: Isomorphic pressures, Leadership, QM  Analyzing Gap  Conclusions

3. 3 Objective of the study How did institutional leaders (rectors and vice-rectors) perceive quality management before the adoption of new laws (2005 and 2007)? What pressures may explain their perceptions?

4. 4 Frame Law and the operation of the GR public universities Every department and every unit in GRPU operates in accordance with the frame law 1268/82 till 2006. The latest 6th Edition, (S. Benos, 2003) consisted of 445 pages, 9.643 paragraphs, 120.401 words and 3.437.216 characters.

5. 5 The structure of leadership and decision making in Greek universities AUTHORITYACADEMIC LEVEL INSTITUTIONSCHOOLDEPARTMENTDIVISION Governance Leadership Rector + Vice Rectors DeanHead (+Deputy Head) Director Decision- Making superior/major SenateGeneral Assembly General Assembly Decision- Making Rector's BoardDean's Board Governing Council ExecutiveRectorate Council Dean's Board Governing Council

6. 6 Theoretical framework This study relies upon a conceptual framework created from a thorough review and synthesis of the literature: in systems theory neo-institutional theory universities’ characteristics : leadership quality management

7. 7 Surveying Leaders via MBNQA Criteria The Seven MB Categories 1. Leadership 2. Strategic Planning 3. Student, Stakeholder, and Market Focus 4. Measurement Analysis and Knowledge Management 5. Faculty and Staff Focus 6. Process Management 7. Organizational Performance Results Source: MBNQA 2005, NIST

8. 8 Findings Importance and Implementation Rates (averages of 9 universities)

9. 9 Findings : Isomorphism NormativeU1U2U3U4U5U6U7U8U9 Combined mean score 8.77.79.57.15.4108.99.99.8 Pressure scaleHigh Med.High MimeticU1U2U3U4U5U6U7U8U9 Combined mean score 9.09.5 1.07.5108 9 Pressure scaleHigh LowHigh

10. 10 Findings : University characteristic: Leadership LeadershipU1U2U3U4U5U6U7U8U9 Leadership Mean score 7.62.27.67.85.75.96.02.76.8 Leadership challenge DADDCCCBC A=“early stage of transition” B= “beginning of systematic approach” C= “systematic fact-based process in some part of the organization” D= “is well integrated”

11. 11 Findings: QM QMU1U2U3U4U5U6U7U8U9 Combined QA score 6.32.17.75.64.14.47.24.56.8 MB total overview 6.52.07.76.04.54.47.14.56.8 Developmental stage DevLacAdvDevEmb DevEmbDev

12. 12 Analyzing Gap SmallLargeTotal Age Old538 New101 Size Small314 Medium224 Large101 Location Urban325 Periphery314

13. 13 Type of Studies Monothematic325 Multidisciplinary314 Leadership Challenge A011 B011 C314 D303 QM stage Lacking011 Embryonic123 Developed404 Advanced101

14. 14 Conclusions Overall findings regarding isomorphism indicated that normative and mimetic pressures were perceived as high in almost all nine cases, and there was almost no inter-university variation between these pressures. Coercive pressure was not detected with this survey tool. The MB survey showed different views of QM, bringing the complexity of these practices into focus.

15. 15 Conclusions -2- For example, all nine universities reported that they did not have any QA system  Evidence on the implementation stage of actual QM instruments revealed that four out of nine universities were in a “developing” stage according to the MB criteria.

16. 16 Conclusions -3- How leaders prioritized their needs:  implementation of QM was most advanced in “Process Management”  implementation of “Strategic Planning” and “Measurement Analysis and Knowledge Management” were least developed “gaps” between the desired levels (a sign of pressure) and actual implementation:  Smallest in “Process Management”  Largest in “Strategic Planning”

17. 17 Conclusions -4- not all leaders were fully committed or knowledgeable about QM initiatives. the leadership challenge was related to QM.  Metaphorically speaking, leadership commitment reflects only the “tip of the iceberg” regarding adoption of QM in Greek universities.

18. 18 Conclusions -Now- QA law (3549/2007) obliges universities to  adopt QA systems  develop a four year strategic plan  fill the position of HEI Secretary  in other words: coercive pressure Coercive pressure may create normative pressure in the future: “professionally trained business managers”  Conclusion: after many ‘paper changes’, chances for growth of QA are increasing

19. 19 Thank you! Questions – Comments? a.papadimitriou@utwente.nl d.f.westerheijden@utwente.nl

20. 20