• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Title: Quality management or Quality Confusion? Are quality management techniques in FE actually preventing the development of transformational leadership?

Research Conference: Centre for Leadership Excellence Re-thinking Leadership: New Directions in the Learning and Skills Sector? June 27- 29 Lancaster University

Dr. Mike Hammond R& D Manager Dudley College.

Abstract

Is leadership an anathema to the plethora of quality management and quality control policies and procedures, which currently abound in most FE Colleges? Are the quality messages underpinning quality in the FE sector developed by Government evidence of quality philosophy confusion? These two research questions underpin this paper. The paper argues that when creating their new model for FE, the ‘new; Labour Government built into the model a number of quality concepts, which rather than complimenting each other, actually are philosophically diametrically opposed. The rejection of the ‘behaviourist/ competence model’ contained within ISO 9000: 2000 in favour of EFQM and dynamic leadership, has only been reinitiated within the concepts of IIP and FENTO standards. The paper also suggests, that an argument might be sustained that ISO 9000: 2000 and other behaviourist/ competence models (IIP and FENTO) negate against transformational leadership in favour of more transactional styles of management, and that EFQM, TQM and Deming systems thinking may be more suitable in the development of transformational leadership models. The paper points however to the need for leaders to embrace the more transformational quality management techniques, as participants and not just sponsors, if the elusive continuous improvement sought be all stakeholders within FE is to be achieved. The paper concludes that the current eclectic mix of transformational and transactional quality management techniques, mean that the system is not and cannot perform in the way that it should. Transactional and Transformational Leadership

Burns (1978) was the first management writer to define transactional and transformational leadership in 1978. Transactional leadership may be defined as a temporal, utilitarian and non-binding relationship that occurs between the leaders and the led, and this facilitates the exchanging of valued things (Allix, 2000). Transactional management might therefore be seen as a ‘deal’ between the leader and the led, whereas transformational leadership places the emphasis more on a concept of mutually supportive relationships of moral and motivational engagement between the leaders and the led. Within this definition of transformational leadership, the power bases are linked to pursuing a set of common and ever increasing purposes (Allix, 2000,p9; Burns, 1978, p19-20).

Burns (1978) saw leadership as a structure of action, which then engages others, whether they are fellow leaders within the process or the led who are subordinate to the leader, to opt in to the process of changing the organisation (Burns, 1978,p3). Transformational leaders are not easy people to work with, as invariably they will challenge the organisational culture by embracing and querying the material, institutional and psychological dimensions which exist within all organisations, and the transformational leader achieves this by recognising and exploiting the needs and demands of others within the organisation. This creates a situation where both the leaders and followers are satisfied within the needs of the organisation (Burns, 1978; Allix, 2000). Transformational leadership is therefore a special form of power, which will create a shared intention or purpose among the leader and the people within the organisation, with a view realising the collective purpose and through this the acts of the organisation (Burns, 1978,p12).

Kowalski and Oates (1993) modify Burns (1978) slightly, and define transformational leadership as representing the transcendence of self- interest by both the leader and the led. Dillard (1995) however, perceives transformational leadership as being an ability by a leader to reach the souls of others in a way that raises the human consciousness and builds meanings into working within the organisation, which inspires human intent and effort from the led because of the personality and charisma of the leader, which is of itself the source of the leaders power (Dillard, 1995). Transformational and transactional leadership might be seen as representing opposite ends of a theoretical leadership continuum, although it might be argued that transactional and transformational management can in some cases be complimentary (Leithwood, 1994; Bass, 1985).

Bass (1985) has identified one of the fundamental problems that underlies this whole area of investigation into transformational leadership, which might be defined as the fusion of transformational (leadership) and transactional (management) leadership concepts; within an overall context of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999). Many academics who have studied leadership within an educational context have concluded that transformational approaches to leadership within an educational context do contribute to the development of capacity and commitment within an educational setting such as Further Education (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999; Yamarino, Dubsinsky and Spangler, 1998; Leithwood, 1994; Yuki (1994).

Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) in their paper sought to analyse whether the socio-psychological effects of transformational leadership techniques actually resulted in organisational change and enhanced outcomes within a school educational setting. They concluded that transformational leadership did have strong direct effects on school conditions, which in turn had strong direct effects on classroom conditions. Transformational leadership was also perceived to have a weak but measurable effect on the effect on student identification with the organisation, but did not effect student participation (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999,p467).

Having defined transformational leadership in positive terms, it would perhaps be tempting to describe transactional leadership as something purely negative in nature compared to transformational leadership. This is not the case however, as Mosley et al (1996) points out that transactional leaders are leaders who identify performance standards, and what types of reward employees desire for their work. The task of the transactional leader is then to balance these standards and rewards against each other to seek optimum performance.

Within the context of transactional leadership, then the concept referred to earlier of a deal between the leader and the led that might be defined in terms of "If you do this, then I will do that!" may govern relationships between the leaders and the led (Moseley et al, 1996,p413). Two levels of transactional leadership may be identified, with level one (the lowest level) being described as being management by objectives; with the main objective being to integrate employee personal goals into the goals of the organisation (Moseley et al, 1996). The second level is a higher level of transactional leadership, and is based on some basic transactional concepts, however the exchangeable values are more in the way of being philosophical concepts, such as respect and trust (Moseley et al, 1996). Lower order transactions are rooted in the leaders control of pay increases and special benefits by management, which they can adjust up and down to promote or punish behaviour or work patterns, and try to achieve maximum efficiency (Moseley et al, 1996).

Higher order transactions, unlike lower transactions do not require the manager to have control of the levers of power in respect of pay, bonuses and the like, as higher order needs like those in Maslow’s hierarchy are based on the need for achievement (Moseley et al, 1996,p413). The higher order transactions, which seek to empower the led to some extent meet the needs of the employees with regard to achievement are a theoretical half way house between transactional and transformational leadership (Moseley, 1996).

Transformational Leaders

Bryman (1992) within his book has postulated that the transformational leader invariably integrates the concept of charisma within their leadership style, to create a sense of follower ship /discipleship. It can also be noted the close relationship in many commentaries on leadership between transformational and charismatic leadership (Gronn, 1996; Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999). The transformational charismatic leader engages in developing a vision of the future for their organisations, and then relentlessly pursues the creating of their reality within the organisation (Bryman, 1992). The Civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King in the US might be cited as a good example of this, as his vision (dream) of equality under the law slowly became and is becoming a reality. Likewise, King showed the second characteristic identified by Bryman (1992) in that a transformational leader with a vision will often endure considerable resistance to their ideas; which they will overcome so to speak, and in so doing create the legend.

To the charismatic transformational leader, values are the all-important basis on which the leader instils new principles into the members of the organisation. This vision then reflects, motivates, and mobilises the organisations members behind the new way forward. The leader then facilitates this process by creating within the organisation a climate of trust that helps the vision to get accepted by the people within the organisation. This is also achieved by empowering the people to have ownership of the vision and to make it work for them. The leader then drives the vision on by reiterating the vision and its values through as many media as are possible within the organisation (Bryman, 1992,p150).

In looking at a charismatic transformational leader who used the type of methods described by Bryman (1992), Adair (1988) points to General Montgomery. Montgomery, who on taking command of the 8th Army (desert rats) took over a demoralised group of officers and men who had been forced to retreat all across north Africa; and brought them to victory at the battle of El-Alamein. It is argued that the charismatic speech that he made on taking over the 8th Army show transformational leadership techniques very well. Paraphrasing from the actual speech, there can quite clearly be seen the vision of victory spelled out time and again, till both officers and men began to own the vision themselves. Having stood on the steps of his Caravan, Montgomery began his speech by declaring his trust in his officers and men, then stating his certainty of ultimate victory; (the vision). He then proceeded to chide those who doubted (the vision) and talked of strategies for retreat. There would be no retreat, lose El Alamein and we lose Egypt, and so the fight is here for everything.

Montgomery then declared that there were practical resources coming (to support the vision) in the form of fresh divisions and 300-400 Sherman tanks being off-loaded in Suez. He then stated that the Prime Minister had told him that he wanted them to drive the Axis out of Africa (thus showing the Prime Minister as being also signed up to the vision). Montgomery then challenged those who might be cynical to go home, if they didn't believe that it could be done, but then he concluded that it could be done; (thus specifically challenging the organisation to join the vision).

Montgomery continued by saying that Rommel (German Field Marshal) might attack at any moment, but let him attack we will win; (reiteration of the vision). Montgomery then said that he would like a week to get ready but it wasn't essential; (reiterating the leader confidence in the personnel of the organisation). He then went on to say that he wouldn't attack until they were ready (thus establishing leadership characteristics, not showing a maverick bent); and nominated Brigadier de Guingarid as Chief of staff. He then told the company, that the Brigadier spoke for him at all times; (thus empowering others and showing shared vision). Montgomery then reminded the company, that he wouldn't have any "belly-aching", and everyone should do as they were told or clear out, and this included every body down to the private soldiers; (total identity with vision for the whole organisation and all employees). Montgomery then sought to bring something tangible (inputting resources to the vision) by declaring that the present camp was a fly hole, and that the whole army was going to move towards the sea because it was healthier there. Also, the whole army could be together, and therefore an atmosphere could be developed (where the vision could be further stamped into the whole organisation). This would then lead to Rommel being kicked out of Africa. Montgomery concludes by reiterating the vision, and as with other charismatic transformational leaders contextualises it within the concept of a Scapegoat as a focal point, in this case Rommel (Adair, 1988,p96-99). This speech, which was received in an electric atmosphere, was the turning point for the Allies, as the battle of El Alamein was won (Adair, 1988,p99).

However, the ability of a leader to spellbound an organisation or even a country has some disadvantages. Rose (1989) in describing the problems at Apple computers has described how charismatic leaders can become obsessive about their vision and will use their charismatic powers to get people behind them. It then becomes increasingly difficult to present any type or form of reality different to that of the leader, as the vision becomes an unyielding obsession over which even the leader has no control (Bryman, 1992).

Bryman (1992) concludes, that the leaders own charismatic talents can lead to their own downfall, as they develop an arrogance about their talents that leads to folly. Charismatic transformational leaders often also require a Scapegoat (Sculley, 1987). In a speech by Apple Computers Chief executive and Charismatic leader Mr. Job; the chief executive poured ridicule and blame on IBM, for the alleged crime of its management and control of the computer age both then and in the future! For Job the scapegoat was IBM, and even Montgomery created the spectre of Rommel as the scapegoat, and a thing to be blamed and beaten (Bryman, 1992; Sculley, 1987). In conclusion therefore, it is argued that charismatic transformational leadership, (and it is difficult to perceive any form of transformational leadership that doesn’t have some charismatic characteristics) is very beneficial (particularly in times of trouble) both in industry, government, or failing educational institutions. As history has shown however, charismatic transformational leadership has led to some corporate and national tragedies as the vision has become obsessive and out of control. Defining the General Underpinning Quality Philosophies

Quality philosophies do not arrive ‘value free’ within FE Colleges and their management systems, without some underline quality philosophy driving them, and therefore it is necessary to briefly consider the main quality gurus, and the schools of thought that they come from. The purpose of this being to identify the philosophies of quality management both in the Colleges themselves, and in the agencies that are impacting on Colleges such as LLUK Ltd, OfSTED, the LSC and central Government to name but a few. It is proposed to accept within this paper the quality management schools identified by Bendell (1997) as being valid. These schools are broadly defined under three broad headings as the early American, the Japanese, and the ‘New Western Wave’ respectively (Bendell, 1997).

The early Americans consist of Deming, Juran, and Figenbaum. Neave (1990) describes Deming as the founding father of the quality movement. Deming (1986) believed that all operations within an organisation worked within a system, and that there are two types of problem from which defects occur. These two problems have been described by Deming (1986) as common causes, and special causes occurring within a system. Common causes are defined as being due to natural variations in the system which occur randomly and the attempted treatment of which can actually make the variations worse, and the results less satisfactory, which is the purpose of Deming’s (1986) famous funnel experiment. Special causes might be due to a particular machine or machine operator performing badly due to incompetence or poor mechanical repair. Special Causes are more problematic to a business, but are probably the easiest problems to deal with, as they indicate that the system is out of statistical control, which might be rectified in the examples given above by retraining for the incompetent operative and repair or replacement of the defective machine (Deming, 1986). Deming (1986) as a statistician by profession believed that process controls and statistical techniques could be used to identify special causes, while at the same time giving management the data from which they could work on the common causes within the system.

Deming (1986) is also known for popularising the PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) circle which is a method of thinking for quality improvement, and which has been used as a tool in its own right, without other parts of the Deming (1986) philosophy. Deming (1986) has also defined fourteen points for quality transformation, and seven deadly diseases which organisations need to avoid if they wish to succeed. Incorporating concepts such as ‘driving fear’ out of an organisation and developing leadership and systems thinking are, fundamental parts of the philosophy of Deming (1986), as is the notion that problems of quality are faults within the system, and thus organisations waste an inordinate amount of time looking for ‘Scapegoats’ to blame when something goes wrong. Deming (1986) argued that trying to measure or inspect quality into a system is a waste of time (which given the plethora of inspecting and quality assurance bodies assigned to police FE, may not be a popular message here) and quality can only be effectively achieved by working on the system itself and thereby building quality in to the system. Beckford (1998) is of the opinion that Deming’s (1986) philosophy overemphasises the use of statistical methods, which make it less suitable for service industries and education as opposed to manufacturing industries. It should be pointed out however, that the fourteen points can be related to services, and do not require the advanced statistical techniques often associated with Deming’s (1986) philosophy, and Deming’s philosophy has been redefined specifically for service industries by at least one academic (Rosander, 1991).

Juran (1974) is the second of the early American gurus who like Deming (1986) also places the role of management at the centre of good quality planning, in a trinity which includes: quality planning, quality control, and quality improvement. Juran (1974), unlike Deming (1986) is also keen on emphasising the use of targets as a means to aid quality improvement, although Beckford (1998) criticises Juran’s works for not showing a clear role of workers within his quality ideas, and the use of positive worker participation (Juran, 1974; Juran, 1980; Juran, 1988). Given the obsession that the new Labour Government has with targets as a measure of performance within the public sector, this disagreement over targets between Deming (1986) and Juran (1974) should be explained. Deming (1986) held that the use of targets distracted workers away from the pursuit of quality for its own sake and on to the attainment or meeting of the target, whereas Juran (1974) took the view that targets helped to focus worker performance.

Juran (1974) is known best for his quality road map which is set out in the form of a flow chart, and seeks to identify the customers needs and turn them into the organisation’s language and units of measure from which the product is developed. Juran’s (1974) road map is systematic and systems orientated, in that involves management and employees working together to bring the new product or system on line. The final early American described by Bendell (1997) is Feigenbaum (1983). Figenbaum (1983) defines quality as that which is best for a customer’s use, the selling price, and quality control as:

“An effective method for co-ordinating the quality maintenance and quality improvement efforts of the various groups in an organisation, so as to enable them production at the most economical level which allows for customer satisfaction.” (Figenbaum, 1983,p2).

Both Deming (1986) and Juran (1974) are systems thinkers, but the final guru from the early American school Figenbaum (1983) may be seen as moving towards the Guru philosophy of the New American Wave, in that in his four steps to quality, he advocates the setting of targets, and advocates the appraisal of conformance to standards, with subsequent action when standards are not met, and then subsequently planning to make improvements (Beckford, 1998,p91).

The Japanese Quality management gurus are the next school that Bendell (1997) defines, and within this school, he places Ishikawa, Taguchi, and Shingo. Ishikawa (1975) believed that to obtain quality, the management of an institution should institute a clear company wide management system where employees are commercially aware, and are continuously looking to resolve problems. This should encompass all areas of an organisation, and not just production. To help staff with this process, Ishikawa (1975) stresses the need for both management and staff to use seven quality management tools, which are: the Pareto Chart, the Ishikawa fishbone diagram, the stratification charts, check sheets, histograms, scatter-graphs, and control charts. Although initially designed for manufacturing organisations, Ishikawa tools have been used successfully by service organisations (Ishikawa, 1975; Ishikawa; 1985).

Taguchi is the second of Bendell’s (1997) Japanese gurus, and he approaches quality through the auspices of design, believing that quality can be controlled through design. He postulates that this quality design philosophy is achieved in eight stages, and these are defined as follows: Stage one: the problem is defined. Stage two: the objectives of the organisation in correcting the problem are defined. Stage three: the problem solvers are gathered together and brainstorm potential solutions. Stage four, an experiment to seek to solve the problem is defined, and at stage five, the experiment is conducted. At stage six, the data from the experiment is analysed, and at stage seven the data is interpreted. Finally, at stage eight, the experiment is repeated to confirm the results (Beckford, 1998, p148). As with Juran however, Beckford (1998) criticises Taguchi for not having a very positive role for employees in the quality solution, although it would appear that the staff that devise and carry out the experiments are considered to be important. Taguchi, like most of the gurus comes from a manufacturing background, and some of his ideas of experimentation it is argued would not transfer well to a services or educational environment (Beckford, 1998).

Bendell’s (1997) final Japanese guru, is Shingo, whose core philosophy is the need to stop the process, whenever a defect occurs, then engage in finding the cause of the defect, thus preventing it is intended a recurrence of the defect, before reactivating the line. Shingo also identifies source inspection, as being important in the identification of errors before they become defects. Beckford (1998) in considering Shingo’s philosophy of quality defines its strengths as being on-line and real time control. Beckford (1998) concludes however that Shingo can be criticised on the grounds that his philosophy appears to have an inadequately developed role for employees in the quality improvement process, and a lack of relevance to any other area of business, but manufacturing (Beckford, 1998,p41). It might be argued though, that the concept of stopping the line is an important principal in any organisation, as it emphasises the concept that the organisation will not sanction the production of any good or service that is not good quality. This should be a philosophy for any organisation whether from manufacturing or services, that quality defects are addressed before the continuation/manufacture of the service or good continues.

The final category considered by Bendell (1997), is the ‘New American Wave’ of quality gurus. Under this heading, Bendell (1997) places Crosby, Peters, and Moller. Crosby (1979) it is argued aimed his philosophy at the ‘airport bookstall market’, as invariably his books are small and easy to read, and full of quick suggestions and solutions to quality issues. Crosby’s books it is suggested offer a cure all for the quality problems of an organisation, with an almost evangelistic fervour. Crosby (1979) describes the five absolutes of quality management as being firstly satisfying ones clients by conformance to standards, and this is cheap if it is done first time, so that therefore the only performance measurement is the cost of quality, and the only performance standard is zero defects. Crosby (1979) also defines 14 steps to quality improvement, which are defined as making clear to employees that management is committed to quality, and this can be demonstrated by senior management participating in quality improvement teams. Crosby believed that processes (systems) should be measured to determine where the present and future quality problems might occur. Management should evaluate the cost of quality (or the cost of poor quality through waste etc) and use it as a management tool. This in turn leads to a raised conception and awareness of quality among employees. Management is required to take action to correct problems, which are identified through quality improvement teams and monitor the progress to maintain the improvement process. Crosby (1979) also advocates the training of supervisors to help the quality improvement processes and the holding of zero defects days within the company to amplify the change and reaffirm in the eyes of employees, the management’s commitment to quality. Within Crosby’s (1979) fourteen steps, employees are encouraged to set targets and improvement goals and communicate obstacles to quality that they encounter to management.

Management are tasked with recognising (and rewarding?) those who participate in quality improvement and establish quality councils to spread the quality gospel, and continue/create a continuous cycle of quality (Crosby, 1984; Bendell, 1997,p28-29). A problem with Crosby’s (1984) philosophy is that there is an emphasis on everyone doing his or her very best, which it is argued may bring short-term improvement, but which cannot be sustained in the longer term, if the root of the problem i.e. the system is not worked on and underlying problems corrected.

The second quality guru, Bendell (1997) considers, is Tom Peters. Peters has written a plethora of management text books (Peters, 1982; Peters, 1985; Peters, 1988; Peters 1992). These books advocate a range of solutions to management problems such as: listening, teaching values to workers, downsizing and outsourcing, not downsizing and outsourcing, managing by walking about, facilitating and so on. Though Bendell (1997) sees Peters as a quality guru, others like Beckford (1998) and Sallis (1994) do not, and there is some merit in the argument of seeing Peters as a management guru, who happens to wander into quality periodically. Peters (1982) et al does however introduce the concepts of consumer supremacy, and delighting the customer, and the freeing up of creativity within an organisation into the quality debate, which it is argued are useful concepts for management and employees to consider within a quality management context.

Bendell (1997) places Moller, as his third and final quality guru, in the ‘New American Wave’ of quality gurus, although Moller is of European extraction. There is however agreement in Beckford (1998) and Sallis (1994), with Moller’s inclusion as a quality guru. Moller has defined twelve golden rules in the checking of performance for quality, and thus enabling every employee to do his best. He defines the rules as first, the setting of personal quality goals by individual employees, through the creation of individual quality accounts. This theoretically allows employees to identify their actual performance, and enables them to use this to seek to attain an ideal performance level above that. Employees are also involved in checking the perception of their performance with others. Within Moller’s (1987) model, there is also the concept of the customer being both internal and external, and being equally valued whatever his/her position.

Moller (1987) also encourages employees to avoid errors, perform tasks more efficiently, be committed, control their stress, utilise their resources well, be ethical and demand quality by continuously checking work, and make each employee carry a business card giving a personal guarantee of quality. Companies are given seventeen points for quality by Moller (1987), which are based around similar concepts (Bendell, 1997, p32). While Moller’s (1987) quality system is very visual, there seems to be no in-depth commitment to quality improvement, which may mean short- term improvements, but longer-term problems recurring as people’s enthusiasm wanes, and the system failures re-appear. Moller (1987) would appear to be in the philosophy school of many quality gurus, who believe that quality can be measured/inspected in, which Deming (1986) would fervently deny, and so there is this philosophical conflict at the heart of the quality management movement, which will effect the tools and methods that are proposed to manage quality in any organisation, including an FE College. There has been some quality management literature produced just for the FE sector, and it is proposed to consider this in relation to the development of quality management within FE

Further Education Quality Management Literature

Sallis (1996) who has a background in FE and in managing FE Colleges states that there are four imperatives for introducing total quality management into FE Colleges. These he describes as the professional, the moral, the competitive, and the survival (Sallis, 1996, p3). West- Burnham (1997) also quotes Sallis (1991) with approval in his book, which is entitled: Effective Strategies for Quality Based School Improvement and although axiomatically, this book was not written specifically for FE, is nevertheless intended to encompass all educational sectors including FE. West-Burnham (1997) concedes that within education: “Few concepts are as open to abuse as ‘quality’. It is a universal panacea for organisational ills, an incontrovertible imperative, and a reassuring message to clients. Few will deny that they accept the value of ‘quality’. The first crucial issue is to see management for quality as a process rather than a product. One of the major problems in the educational service is that the achievement of quality is perceived as an intellectual problem rather than a management process. In this sense quality management becomes a search after a Platonic absolute, rather than an Aristotelian analysis of action to be taken. Quality has to be seen in terms of relationships rather than intangible (and unattainable) goals. To see quality, as an elusive abstract is to deny the possibility of its attainment and so justify a power-based controlling relationship. If quality is defined by clients in terms of relationships then it becomes potentially attainable.” (West Burnham, 1997, p17).

An analysis of West-Burnham’s (1997) philosophy to quality management would appear to suggest that he takes an eclectic outlook, as he refers to the systems thinking of Deming (1986), but at the same time appearing also to favour some of the ‘New American Wave’ thinking, and this can be better seen in his definition of TQM, where he includes the Crosby (1979) concepts of ‘right first time’, ‘fitness for purpose’, and ‘zero defects’ (West-Burnham, 1997,p9). Neave (1990) points out the antipathy that Deming (1986) had towards concepts of zero defects, and the whole measurement concept that West Burnham (1997) appears to favour. The eclectic theme of mixing quality philosophies appears to run throughout the education sector generally, and the writings discussed in this paper appear to suggest that you can ‘pick and mix’ your quality philosophies and ideas.

For example, Sallis (1996) also appears to accept a quality management definition, which incorporates measurement as a central theme. He states:

“ Quality in the technical sense is employed as a relative concept and this is the way it is used in quality assurance and TQM. The relative definition views quality not as an attribute of a product or service, but as something, which is ascribed to it- “the quality of your essay varies between good and excellent”. Quality in this sense is about measuring against a specification. It is not the end in itself, but a means by which the end product is judged to be up to (or not up to) standard.” (Sallis, 1996,p14).

In discussing transformational concepts of quality, Sallis (1996) appears to extract concepts from both Deming (1986) and Juran (1974), and from this, Sallis (1996) does concede that:

“The important part of making the distinction between the procedural and the transformational aspects of quality is not to label one right and the other wrong. Both concepts play a key role in understanding quality. The point of the distinction is to recognise that there are different approaches to achieving quality, and that the pursuit of quality is an exercise requiring not only well developed and understood systems and procedures but also customer orientated transformational culture where individuals are given responsibility for the quality of the work in their area, and can contribute fully to its achievement.” (Sallis, 1996,p17).

Stone (1997) writing specifically for quality management in FE Colleges in his book: ‘A Guide to Quality Management’, takes a similar position to Sallis (1996). Stone (1997) begins his book by discussing as often other quality management authors do, the philosophical backgrounds of the quality gurus, while at the same time trying to give realistic assessment of the ‘quality drivers’ within education, as well as those from outside education impacting upon education, such as central Government policy. Stone (1997) points to an issue that is at the heart of education, namely the quality inspection by outside inspectors on the quality of education provision taking place, and the management of that quality (Stone, 1997,p6). Stone (1987) concludes:

“The traditional mechanism for quality management in education, that based on an inspection continues as an important feature in quality assessment today. This is in spite of a general trend in industry and commerce to dispense with inspection in favour of total quality management approaches. The notion that quality cannot be inspected in may be increasingly accepted outside in industry, but this view has not dominated thinking within education. Sir William Stubbs, former Chief Executive of the Further Education Funding Council, in a keynote speech to College Principals at the ACFHE annual general meeting in February 1993 laid out his belief that: “There is no substitute for the scrutiny of what is being provided by a group of experts external to the organisation.” (Stone, 1997,p6).

Given this bold statement at the beginning of the book, it is probably not surprising that Stone (1997) goes on to recommend that in developing quality within a College; the College should follow an eleven stage process of: making quality an executive responsibility, identifying a minimum level of resources, form a steering group, review existing systems, review organisational strategy, decide what quality means to you, select a quality assurance framework, draw up a quality policy statement, identify a range of improvement projects, prioritise between possible improvement projects, and finally publish a quality improvement plan (Stone, 1997,p29). Stone (1997) advocates an eclectic view of quality management for FE, albeit with an emphasis it is suggested on the ‘New American Wave’ ethos of quality management. Within FE Colleges, much quality management is managed through quality assurance frameworks, and it is proposed to consider next how these are and will impact on the development of quality management in FE, and the proposals that Government is making to effect quality management in FE Colleges.

Quality management and Quality assurance Frameworks in FE Colleges

It is argued that there are a number of systems of quality assurance, which are being used by FE Colleges. The Government sees quality assurance as being a tool for improving quality and performance in Britain generally and further education particularly. So in a Green paper DfEE (1998), the Government states:

“We propose to consolidate the position of Investors in People as the general standard across the public and private sectors, and in large and small organisations. In particular we would like to see all our leading companies recognised as Investor in People as well as using other tools for improving performance such as the Business Excellence Model (the British version of the European Framework for Quality Management)”. (DfEE, 1998, p38) While the Government is now championing the Business Excellence model, many FE Colleges still use the ISO quality assurance framework, specifically ISO 9000:2000. Porter and Tanner (1996) describe the primary concept of ISO 9000:2000 to be to justify and commit to a written form what is done within an organisation, which then leads to a description of what has to be done to conform to what is written. Performance is then recorded and analysed to check consistency through systems audits and reviews, and where there is non-performance, this can in turn lead to corrective and preventable actions being taken. It would appear however, that ISO 9000: 2000 is not really in the business of continuously improving the quality of what is produced, but exists merely to document it properly. The actual quality of the product therefore, is being left to the dictates of the manufacturer, and what they deem they can sell, and it is to them that the definition of quality is given, as is quintessentially what they want from the ISO certification, in fairness to ISO 9000: 2000. Pardis and Small (1996) define the ISO 9000 quality system as:

“A quality system is the organisational structure, responsibilities, procedures, processes and resources needed to implement quality management. It should only be as comprehensive as needed to meet quality objectives. It is the quality system that becomes certified (registered) during the certification process.” (Pardis and Small, 1996,p8).

The focus for quality within ISO 9000 therefore, rests on the identification and certification of the systems and this ethos is underpinned by a three stage audit of the self assessment followed by customer audits, which is followed by a third party external audit, and this is undertaken by a an ISO 9000 approved auditor. This external auditor then either issues non-conformance notices or certification certificates. Pardis and Small (1996) define nine stages on the road to certification, and these includes things such as strategic planning and gap analysis, corrective action from analysis and documentation, and recorded implementation of the system. The final part of the process is then a pre-certification audit, and a register of the documents and records for the implementation of the system, followed by a pre-certification audit, register documentation, review and site preparation and certification audit (Pardis and Small, 1996, p10). Porter and Tanner (1996,p28) suggest that ISO 9000:2000 can degenerate into a paper chase, as each minute detail of what is done is recorded, while the external audits can lead some employees into defensive attitudes based around hiding non-conformance, and trying to ‘beat the audit’ rather than using the ISO concepts to improve the quality functions of what that institution undertakes. When considering how a non-conformance takes place, the four main reasons are usually, that the procedure may be wrong, the operator untrained, or the operator may not be aware of the latest procedure, or the operator may simply want to do things in their own way (Porter and Tanner, 1996,p28). Porter and Tanner (1996) seem to wish to place a lot of responsibility on the operator (quintessential a special cause), rather than the system (where in Deming’s (1986) theory, the majority of common and usual causes emanate), when there are problems. This is contrary to the views of both Juran (1974) and Deming (1986), who held the view that 75% and 95% of the time when there were problems, it was the responsibility of the systems in the organisation, not any particular individual.

In DfEE (1998) there is a sign that the New Labour Government of Mr. Blair at least initially, was moving away from the position of their predecessors (who promoted an ISO 9000: 2000 approach), to the Business Excellence Model, or European Foundation for Quality Management Model (EFQM). In so far as EFQM carries a ‘quality flag’, it is similar to ISO 9000: 2000. EFQM is based on self assessment which is superior to the ISO model in that it concentrates on quality within an organisation rather than engaging in a paper chase to impress or avoid a non-conformance from an external auditor (Conti, 1991,p168). Quality Genius (2000) define the advantage of self assessment as being that within a closed loop system, the organisation can set financial and quality improvement targets, which can then be measured against the achievement of the organisation. Then the results can be fed back within the organisation, and the organisation is then in a position to compare their position with others in the industry, and then repeat the exercise, as new opportunities arise using this philosophy.

EFQM as already stated, have devised a business model called the business excellence model which identifies eight areas of an organisation being leadership, people, policy and strategy, partnerships, resources and processes which the EFQM describes as the enabler part of the business process, and the results section of the model, which includes people results, customer results, society results, and key performance results. The enablers are the how of business, and by working on them the results are what will follow (Steed, 2004;Schaltes, 1995). Each of the parts of the model has a percentage importance ratio, and is stored by the organisation, to give an indication of the performance of the organisation, as against given quality standards within the model. This allows an organisation to clearly identify weaknesses, which it needs to work on, if it is to obtain quality. EFQM conclude:

“Self assessment is a comprehensive, systematic and regular review of an organisations activities and results, referenced against the EFQM excellence model. The self assessment process allows the organisation to discern clearly its strengths and areas in which improvements can be made and culminates in planned improvement actions which are then monitored for progress.”(EFQM, 2000, p2).

EFQM is extremely useful in helping organisations to focus on their mission and vision, and through work groups and teams, identify the relevant partners and suppliers within the organisation (Steed, 2004,p4). There is a requirement in implementing EFQM, for the organisation to empower the staff that they have to be creative and be involved in the decision making process. This infers a bottom up rather than top down style of management and leadership, which are not at all like the leadership systems that operate in many FE Colleges today (Steed, 2004, p5).

It is suggested that the interest that the DfEE (1998) has stems not only from outward pressure from industry who in the private sector are more advanced in many cases down this road than the public sector, but that in the post 16 education and training sector, self assessment was part of an existing inspection system under the FEFC, and the Training Standards Council, who inspected private training providers. There is still a commitment to mechanistic ISO type standards within DfEE (1998), which are an anathema to EFQM philosophy. An IIP inspection takes place, and the inspectors’ measures managers against their ability to produce evidence to cover certain standards. For example in version 21 IIP standards under the general heading of “Developing strategies to improve the performance of the organisation” and a sub-heading of “Learning and development is planned to achieve the organisation’s objectives,” there are four competences/ standards that senior management must satisfy (IIP, 2004, p1).For example competence/ standard one states: “1. Top managers can explain the organisation’s learning and development needs, the plans and resources in place to meet them, how these link to achieving specific objectives and how the impact will be evaluated.”(IIP, 2004, p1).

Like many standards, IIP standards struggle in their attempt to define competence for creating or managing environments or emotions, for example under a sub-heading of “Strategies for managing people are designed to promote equality of opportunity in the development of the organisation’s people”, the IIP declares:

“1. Top managers can describe strategies they have in place to create an environment where everyone is encouraged to contribute ideas to improve their own and other people’s performance.” ( IIP, 2004, p1).

How can this process be actually managed effectively? In committing itself to IIP, the Government is guilty of placing a competence based ISO type of procedure alongside the completely different quality philosophy contained in EFQM (DfEE, 1998).

In relation to the self-assessment process that Colleges are being required to go through, then this model was originally intended to be under the direction the LSC, and particularly the Local LSC’s (LLSC’s) as well as when an institute is preparing for an OfSTED inspection. The LSC and the LLSC’s (of which there are forty-seven) are both a national and regional organisation(s) which are responsible both for the funding, planning, and ultimately quality of the post 16 education and training in the country, and in their geo-graphical area respectively. Although recently the creation by Government of the SSDA, SSCs, RDAs and the development of LSDA may have diluted this responsibility for quality somewhat. The LSC was created by the Learning and Skills Act (2000), following the disbanding of the FEFC and the Training Enterprise Councils (TEC’s), and on inception they became responsible for FE Colleges, Private Training Providers and others involved in the delivery of Post 16 FE curriculum. The LSC recommend that:

“In planning for self-assessment and presenting the self- assessment report, providers should identify: Why self- assessment is being carried out. Which areas /activities will be subject to self-assessment. How the self-assessment will be carried out. Who will carry out the self assessment, and when the stages in the process will be carried out.” (LSC, 2001,p4).

The LSC require that self-assessment should be built into the strategic and operational planning of the College, and not be seen as a bolt on activity, as well as being integral to a College EFQM or ISO 9000 quality assurance systems (LSC, 2001). The LSC’s (2001) self-assessment process does however provide that FE Colleges follow the councils own quality improvement strategies contained in the council’s three-year corporate plan. These Key areas are the volume of provision agreed with the LLSC’s and the quality of education and training and standards achieved by learners. The equality of opportunity should also be considered, as well as health and safety, and the quality of leadership and management, continuous improvement, quality of strategic planning, financial assurance and data management. Other things that should be considered include national initiatives such as the basic skills and quality initiatives (LSC, 2001, Para 13, p5-6).

When carrying out self-assessment, FE Colleges are advised to carry out their self-assessment exercises in such a way as to make effective use of performance data, including benchmarks, which provide clear evidence to support judgements. Providers are also encouraged to be evaluative rather than descriptive, but clearly identifying strengths and weaknesses, which should be honest and objective (LSC, 2001, Para 17,p6). The self assessment exercise should also engage staff at all levels, as well as learners, and should be effectively led and managed by the corporation and senior management of the College (LSC, 2001 Para 32-36, p9). The self-assessment guide links well into Colleges using EFQM reflective self-assessment models, and thus appears to flow naturally from the Green Paper (DfEE, 1998).

The positive instruction/suggestion to FE Colleges to use benchmarking, is interesting, as benchmarking might be seen to be a tool that comes out of the TQM philosophy for quality management (Madu, 1998,p409). Bendell, Boulter and Goodstadt (1998) state that benchmarking is important because it facilitates continuous improvement and stimulates process efficiency and effectiveness. Additionally, benchmarking is helpful in concentrating organisational thinking and adding external perspectives to aid organisations to focus on matters that are really important (Bendell, Boulter and Goodstadt, 1988,p18). So when undertaking benchmarking, an organisation might ask itself questions such as: “Where do we want to be? Where are we now? What do we need to do to get from here to there?” (Bendell, Boulter and Goodstadt, 1998,p28). If an organisation is to undertake benchmarking successfully, then the exercise must have the commitment of senior management (Bendell Boulter and Goodstadt, 1998,p76).

Benchmarking can be both internal and external, against other divisions/ departments within the same organisation, or against other competitor organisations. When undertaking benchmarking it is usually possible to obtain most information from a desktop study, which usually takes the form of annual reports, financial statements, technical literature, publications and things like conference seminars (Bendell, Boulter and Goodstadt, 1998,p111). If an organisation wishes to undertake a competitive benchmark exercise however, then there is a European Benchmarking Code of Conduct, which lays down guidelines/regulations about how organisations should conduct their benchmarking activities to prevent the theft of confidential information and other issues (Bendell, Boulter and Gatford, 1999,p197). Therefore before commencing any competitive benchmarking exercise, all staff should be made aware of the Code of Conduct, and agree to be bound by it.

Quintessentially, to be really successful, a benchmarking exercise should benefit all the participants, with both parties gaining something from it. Owen (1999) in response it is suggested to DFEE (1998) has produced a benchmarking handbook for FE Colleges. In what might be described as a clumsy definition, Owen (1999) states that:

“Benchmarking is a systematic method of improvement that utilises others good practice to improve your own processes. It can be used as a way of improving any process from ordering paper clips to recruiting staff. Benchmarking is a method of identifying what must be improved in an organisation, finding ways of making those improvements and then implementing those improvements. It requires an organisation to fully understand its processes and its customers and stakeholders needs. From that point it is possible to identify gaps between needs and performance. Once an organisation knows what to improve, it can use the knowledge and experience of the organisations it is benchmarking with its benchmarking partners-to identify better ways of working.” (Owen, 1999,p2)

It is argued that Owen (1999) may be overemphasising the effectiveness of benchmarking as being a means of identifying problems, as benchmarking should be seen as a tool to identify solutions to problems which have been discovered by looking at perceived better/ more advanced models. Owen (1999) suggests that benchmarking for FE Colleges could be internal between internal curriculum divisions, or sector specific, which would be benchmarking between FE Colleges and other FE Colleges or FE Colleges and 6th form Colleges. Finally Owen (1999) describes generic benchmarking, where an FE College might benchmark itself against a travel agent or other dissimilar organisation (Owen, 1999,p3). Owen (1999) in describing what requirements are needed to undertake a benchmarking exercise identifies “four vital requirements,” which are: first, strong commitment from senior management to act on the findings of the project. Secondly, support for the staff taking part in the project, including training and resources. Thirdly, authorisation for staff to develop pilots and implements new practices where appropriate, and fourthly, agree time from their normal duties for those staff taking part (Owen, 1999,p4-5).

Owen (1999) also recommends that Colleges undertaking benchmarking use a questionnaire format to elicit the required information during the benchmarking exercise and obtain answers to the questions: What is your process? Is there a documented description or flowchart of the process? What process measurement do you use? What are the current measurement results? What aspects of the process work well? What are the problems you have with the process? What improvements have you made to the process? Is there any other information you feel might be helpful to us? (Owen, 1999,p10). It is suggested that some of these questions suggest a lack of planning about what the process itself actually is, which should be clear before the benchmarking. It is interesting to note, that Owen (1999) seeks to link benchmarking to flowcharting, Pareto analysis, cause and effect diagrams, and EFQM, making a stronger claim for benchmarking to be built in to TQM, than even Bendell, Boulter and Goodstadt (1998), who prefer to describe benchmarking as a stand alone discipline not integrated into TQM in the same way as Owen (1999) recommends (Owen, 1999,p4, p21 etc).

DfEE (1998) also created a number of National Training Organisations (NTO’s) with a view to helping business, although these have now evolved to become Sector Skills Councils. FE found itself with its own NTO, called FENTO (Further Education National Training Organisation). FENTO (whose role has now been subsumed into an SSC called Lifelong Learning UK Ltd) who in its role has sought to contribute to the debate about the quality of FE, by creating some general quality standards for various functions and roles in the FE process. FENTO/ LLUK Ltd Standards and Quality in FE

FENTO standards were (and may still be) seen by the Government, as a means of raising standards within FE, as the Government has expressed concern at the quality of some FE provision. Like ISO and EFQM, FENTO’s ambitions would appear to be to achieve kite mark status, Price (2001) states:

“FENTO is now ready to kite mark qualifications, and training programmes that are based on any of the FENTO standards. UK- wide institutions and organisations who seek approval for qualifications, accredited CPD or training programmes based upon any of the standards developed by FENTO can apply for kite marking.” (Price, 2001).

The purposes of the standards that relate to teacher training are:

“To provide an agreed set of standards that can be used to inform the design of accredited awards for FE teachers, validated within the natural qualifications framework or by higher education institutions or awarding bodies. It is likely that there will be different qualifications to meet a range of possible needs. To provide standards that can be used to inform professional development actually within FE. To assist institutional based activities such as recruitment, appraisal and the identification of training needs.” (FENTO, 2001a,p1).

An example from e4 of the FENTO standard for teachers:

“Provide Personal Support to Learners. To do these teachers: provide opportunities for learners to raise personal issues affecting their learning. Create formal and informal opportunities to listen and respond to the views and feelings of individual learners. Maximise opportunities for learners to have access to specialist support as necessary. Know the limits of their own competence as tutors to deal with personal issues. Maintain close and effective links with colleagues and other professionals in order to help individual learners resolve their personal problems. Act as advocates for, and mediate on behalf of individual learners when problems arise. Provide appropriate mentoring to individual learners.” (FENTO, 2001a, p26)

They continue:

“This requires critical understanding and essential knowledge of: counselling skills, ways of networking with other professionals and stakeholders to help individual learners. The potential to do harm if teachers exceed their own levels of competence. Sources of specialist counselling and other professional support, and how to access them.”(FENTO, 2001a, p26)

FENTO/ LLUK Ltd have not restricted themselves to standards for teachers and teaching qualifications. Standards now exist for Governors and Clerks to the Corporation, although Governors are unpaid volunteers. FENTO described these standards as benchmark standards. FENTO (2001,b) justify and explain the reasoning for these standards, when they state:

“We have written these standards to put governors, chairs, and clerks quickly in touch with their responsibilities and the skills and knowledge they need. They are called ‘benchmark standards’ because they are designed to help governors, chairs and clerks, benchmark their work to common standards.” (FENTO, 2001b,p 4)

These standards are deemed to be suitable for Government appraisal, development and recruitment and include both roles and responsibilities, (FENTO (2001b, p4-5). Principals and managers in FE also, are not to escape the attentions of the FENTO standards. FENTO (2001c) states:

“ A national professional qualification for College Principals due to be introduced in 2002, will become a requirement for all newly appointed Principals from a date yet to be specified. There will also be an induction programme for new Principals during their first two years in the job and an improved modular leadership programme for serving Principals. All programmes for Principals will be based on FENTO management standards.” (FENTO, 2001c,p2).

FENTO has however produced draft national occupational standards for management in FE, which are based on management standards for general management (NVQ’s, MCI), and the national standards for head teachers and subject leaders (TTA). Considered also, were the management competencies for further education (SFEU), the national standards for teaching and supporting learning in further education in England and Wales (FENTO) and the standard for head ship in Scotland (SQH) (FENTO, 2001d, p2). The key purposes of the management standards are:

“To lead the organisation within the education and training context. To set and achieve objectives for the organisation, and to continuously improve the quality of learning and standards of achievement.” (FENTO, 2001d, p5).

FENTO (2001,d) goes on to argue that successful management in FE leads to five key outcomes, defined as:

“Performances by employees, who have pride in their work are innovative, imaginative, quality conscious and flexible in their working practices that command respect and reflect best practice Achievements which need or exceed national benchmarks. Plans likely to secure a successful future for the organisation, the local, regional, and national economy and which evidence a high degree of collaboration and partnership. Operational targets that are generally met and sometimes exceeded”. (FENTO, 2001,d, p5).

The purpose of the FENTO standards resembles ISO 9000, as they attempt to measure and inspect, and define quality it is argued from an external perspective. They do not actually show how to achieve quality, or create continuous improvement. As FENTO (2001d) however, intimates the concept of FENTO standards is competence. It is proposed to look further at this concept in the next section of this paper. Competence

Competence is based on a behaviourist philosophy, which measures the ability to do a task/job to a given specification (Jessup, 1991). Jessup (1991) was to claim that a Craftsperson for example needed only to know how to perform their craft, but did not need to know the sonnets of Shakespeare for example, and even technical explanations behind practical activities, is relegated to underpinning knowledge (Jessup, 1991). This philosophy created qualifications that emphasised the what and how but not the why a task was undertaken in any great way, although there was some theory which was supposed to underpin the competence, but which other academics deemed to be totally inadequate (Smithers, 1991). As Stanton and Bailey (2001) point out:

“The national Council for Vocational Qualifications was set up in 1986. The review and subsequent white paper, which led to NCVQ, envisaged a National Vocation Qualifications framework with 5 levels that would eventually incorporate all VET qualifications, as soon as they met the appropriate criteria [see DE/DES (1986)]. At the same time within the Government, the Department of Employment established the standards programme with the aim of developing the national occupational standards.” (Stanton and Bailey, 2001,p13).

The competence movement enjoyed its rise to prominence at the same time as the then Conservative Government was pushing ISO 9000, which it has been argued, is also based on a behaviourist model of fitness for purpose/competence/compliance, and which it appears is still a part of the FENTO/ LLUK Ltd standards. The DfEE (1998) see FENTO standards, as part of their drive to raise standards and improve quality within the post 16 education and training market. Stanton and Bailey (2001) go on to point out, that inspection of competence to specification is also a big part of what the NVQ competence qualifications are about. As has already been pointed out, inspection also has a fundamental role in ISO 9000 (Stanton and Bailey, 2001,p13; Pardis and Small, 1996). Within the Learning and Skills Act (2000), inspection has become a part of the new model of FE under the LSC, as the Act created ALI to look at non full time courses and extended the brief of OfSTED to cover full time 16-19 year old students in FE Colleges. OfSTED, ALI and Quality through Inspection

In DfEE (2000), Blunkett stated what he perceived to be the issues surrounding FE. He said:

“In general further education too, there is excellence of which we can be proud. But there are weaknesses that result in too much variation in standards that we must tackle. Some relate to poor advice and guidance for young people about choices at 16, which I will touch on elsewhere, others relate to the standard of provision young people receive. The Government will continue to emphasise raising standards, and the Learning and Skills Council will intervene to support the weakest providers and offer constant challengers to the rest.” (DfEE, 2000,p1)

DfEE (2000) went on to say:

“We must continue to address deficiencies in Colleges, causing concern those that independent inspection identifies as failing their students and the wider community. But those represent a small and declining minority. We have a much wider challenge to lever up standards across the great bulk of the Colleges that have middling inspection grades, retention and achievement rates against the benchmarks that the FEFC has now established for them. We need together embedded a culture of continuous improvement. To recognise that what was ‘satisfactory’ last year will be ‘barely satisfactory’ next, not to discourage our staff by always complaining that the glass is half-empty, but to challenge and support them to do better. The fact that this is the general message across the UK economy does not make it any less applicable to those of us with responsibility for further education.” (DfEE, 2000,p24).

As has already been stated, the LSC has instructed Colleges to implement an annual self-assessment exercise, and from that agree with the LSC/ES, areas for improvement and targets etc. The development plan should set out how the provider aims to achieve excellence. The provider is also required to monitor continuously, the implementation of the development plan (LSC, 2001b). OfSTED and/or ALI is to determine the providers quality in relation in the case of FE Colleges to the College’s perceived self-assessment quality, and then inspect this self-assessment report, and the quality of classroom teaching and learning. OfSTED/ ALI inspection under the new framework in the first round of FE College inspections, was controlled by the Common Inspection Framework produced by OfSTED (OfSTED, 2001a). This describes the main purposes of inspection to be to:

“ Give an independent public account of the quality of education and training, the standards achieved and the efficiency with which resources are managed. Help bring about improvement by identifying strengths and weaknesses and highlighting good practice. Keep the secretary of State, the Learning and Skills Council for England and the Employment Service informed about the quality and standards of education and training. Promote a culture of self assessment among providers, leading to continuous improvement or maintenance of a very high quality and standards” (OfSTED, 2001a)

In terms of what is evaluated and reported OfSTED (2001a) stated that:

“Inspectors will focus primarily on the experiences and expectations of individual learners through the evaluation, as applicable of what is achieved, the standards reached and learner’s achievements, taking into account their prior attainment and intended learning goals. The quality of teaching, training and learning. Other aspects that contribute to the standards achieved such as the range, planning and content of courses or programmes; resources and the support for individual learners. The effectiveness, with which the provision is managed, its quality assured and improved, and how effectively resources are used to ensure that the provision gives value for money. The extent to which provision is educationally and socially inclusive, and promotes equality of access to education and training including provision for learners with learning difficulties or disabilities” (OfSTED 2001a) In the first inspections taking place under the supervision of OfSTED however, FE Colleges were to find that the new inspection regime was a more tough one, than they were used to before, with OfSTED only awarding one grade 1 (outstanding quality) while at the same time awarding fourteen grade 4’s (unsatisfactory quality) (OfSTED, 2001b; OfSTED, 2001c; OfSTED, 2001d; OfSTED, 2001e; OfSTED, 2001f). There were also suggestions made at two Colleges, that the management was weak, and this was contributing to the weak provision (OfSTED, 2001c; OfSTED, 2001e). The response of the Government and the LSC was that providers identified as causing concern would be subject to performance reviews, which are quite rigorous in their nature and in actuality re-inspections within the next academic year (LSC, 2001,c). LSC (2001c) states that the aims of performance review will be to:

“Assess provision and help ensure that all provision is of at least an acceptable standard. Confirm that there is appropriate observance of the LSC’s responsibility in respect of Health and Safety and equality and diversity legislation. Take regular stock of provider’s performance and identify any action required to bring about improvement. Promote continuous improvement and raise standards. Identify excellence so it can be recognised and disseminated across post 16 provision. Identify concerns, take action to strengthen provision in difficulty and ultimately apply sanctions if necessary. Inform the process of strategic planning across post 16 provision.” (LSC, 2001c, p2).

The sanctions that might be applied to failing curriculum have been suggested to be the removal of the funding for the curriculum and transfer of students to other providers, or the replacement of management, with new managers, although despite the rhetoric, this later sanction seems to be one that is most infrequently used (DfEE (1999). It is therefore argued that the literature would suggest that the LSC, OfSTED and ALI are intending to take on an aggressive stance towards the measurement of quality and thus quality management. A critique of the OFSTED sanctions model might be made, as it is encouraging managers and staff to be fearful of sanction and thus more tempted to try to hide inadequacies, rather than addressing them properly in self -assessment, and endeavouring to address them openly. Driving fear out the workplace is a major philosophical concept of Deming (1986), and is an underlining principle of EFQM (Deming, 1986; Steed, 2004).

Conclusions

This paper has ranged over a wide number of what at first might seem to be dissimilar issues, but which in themselves all fit under a general heading of quality management or quality assurance in its widest sense. The other factor that they have in common is that they all impact on quality within the average FE College within this country. After this point, all broad similarities end, as you then have what amounts to a mixed bag of philosophies and styles underlining the quality initiatives. EFQM, the Government’s supposed preferred option for Colleges to adapt, and theoretically the self-assessment exercises required for OfSTED inspection as described in the common inspection framework initially, suggest a movement towards a more reflective empowered employee as in the Deming (1986) and Juran (1974) type of quality philosophy (DfEE, 1998).

It is perhaps important to point out though, the fear that OfSTED inspections have put into the sector, the rigorous grading criteria and the ‘hype’ following the initial OfSTED inspections of FE Colleges, create a lot of issues in relation to the ability of the self assessment process to be truly evaluative, rather than simply a mechanism for FE Colleges to try to trumpet strengths and hide weaknesses. In that sense therefore, although theoretically a Deming (1986) type philosophy, it fails due to the problems of fear that it is argued that the process generates in both organisations and individuals.

To counter-balance the Deming type philosophy, there remains a strong commitment both by Government and by organisations related to FE to maintain a contrary philosophy alongside this. First, there is ISO9000: 2000, which effectively is about conformance to standard, which is a type of competence concept. The same is true of Investors in People, which are again standards, which the achievement of, leads to the award of the kite-mark, and require the organisation’s senior management to prove that they are carrying out certain standards competently. LLUK Ltd/ FENTO standards also, as can be seen from the examples given, are in the same mould of being standards to assess competence. The majority of these standards were developed during the late 1980’s under the auspices of the now defunct National Council for Vocational Qualifications, but have proved to be consistent despite the loss of favour in many FE Colleges for ISO standards. Can two such different philosophies harnessed side by side actually work together to produce quality? The answer is uncertain, given the desire by many teaching in FE to leave the sector, and difficulties in recruiting staff that are being found in some Colleges. It is doubtful whether if there should be a ‘feel good factor’, it is permeating through to the chalk face in any significant way. There therefore must at least be a question mark over whether the amount of quality initiatives with their eclectic mix of underpinning philosophies have indeed affected the quality of curriculum and experience in the average FE College.

What therefore is to be said about leadership, the latest new Government idea? The Creation of the Centre for Excellence (CEL) in Leadership rather than a centre for excellence in management is presumably an indicator of what the Government expects from that organisation, as the creator of future leaders in the FE sector (CEL, 2003). The CEL mission defines a form of leadership that has more to do with transformational styles of leadership, than with the more transactional styles. From this the question that was posed in the title must be considered, within the context of the fact that given the current managerial type standards responsible for much of what is driving Quality Management, will this in and of itself prevent the development of the CEL type transformational manager? Standards as has already been intimated within this paper do not aid continuous improvement, because they can focus workers on a minimum acceptable standard (Deming, 1986). Adherence to a standard it is argued may obstruct a visionary manager from pursuing a more adventurous and ultimately successful policy, as he/ she are hemmed in by the standard (Deming, 1986)

Where within the standards type emphasis of quality management systems and FENTO/ LLUK Ltd standards is there room for creativity and entrepreneurial dynamism? Part of the success of the charismatic leader is that they by their charismatic personalities weld together their staff and those around them into a vision which is taken forward, as the example of Montgomery showed earlier in this paper? Where is the room for charisma in the standards of IIP? By seeking to remain adhered to the notions of an eclectic model, these questions remain unanswered except in the motivation levels of the led and managed, who would appear to be seeking to escape from FE institutions with rapidity.

That standards and the features of transactional management are clearly homogeneous would appear axiomatic. The measurement and conformance elements are clear within both the quality standards and the theories of transactional management, but the Government through the CEL want transformational managers for FE Colleges. Given the evidence, it is respectfully suggested that either they do not know what transformational managers really are about, or they don’t understand the different philosophies underpinning the quality procedures that they give such weight to. Either way, the question in the title must be answered in the positive. Yes it is likely that the quality procedures and adherence to multiple agency standards will and is a serious detriment in the development of transformational management.

References

Adair, J. (1988) Effective Leadership: A Modern Guide to Developing Leadership Skills London, Pan Books.

Allix, N. (2000) ‘Transformational Leadership Educational Management and Administration Vol 28 (1) p7-20.

Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations New York. The Free Press.

Beckford, A. (1998) Quality: a critical introduction London, Routledge.

Bendell, A. (1997) The Quality Gurus: what they can do for your company London, DTI.

Bendell, T. Boulter, L. Goodstadt, P. (1998) Benchmarking for Competitive Advantage London, Pitman Publishing.

Bendell, T. Boulter, L. Gatford, K. (1997) The Benchmarking Workout London, Pitman Publishing.

Bryman, A. (1992) Charisma and Leadership in Organisations London, Sage.

Burns, J. M. (1978) Leadership New York, Harper and Row.

Centre for Excellence in Leadership (2004) Leading the Way 2004-2006 Lancaster, CEL.

Conti, T. (1991) ‘Company Quality Assessments Total Quality Management June 1991, London. Crosby, P.B. (1979) Quality is Free New York, McGraw-Hill.

Crosby, P.B. (1984) Quality without tears New York, McGraw-Hill.

Deming, W.E. (1986) Out of the Crisis: Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

DfEE (1998) The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods New York, McGraw-Hill.

DfEE (1999) White Paper: Learning to Succeed London, HMSO.

DfEE (2000) Colleges for Excellence and Innovation London, DfEE.

Dilard, G. B. (1995) Leading with her life: An African-American feminist (re)interpretation of Leadership for an Urban High School Principal Educational Administration Quarterly 31 p539-563.

EFQM (2000) http: // www. EFQM.org./selfas.htm.

FENTO (2001a) Standards for teaching and supporting learning in Further Education in England and Wales London, FENTO.

FENTO (2001b) Governors and Clerks in Further Education Benchmark Standards London, FENTO.

FENTO (2001c) Towards a more qualified profession London, FENTO.

FENTO (2001d) National Occupational Standards for Management in Further Education Draft 7. London, FENTO.

Figenbaum, J (1983) in Bendell, A. (1997) The Quality Gurus: what they can do for your company London, DTI.

Gronn, P. (1996) ‘from Transactions to Transformations: A New World Order in the Study of Leadership Educational Management and Administration 24 (1) pp7-30.

Investors In People (2004) The Investors in People Standard Version 21 London, IIP.

Ishikawa, K. (1975) Guide to Quality Control Tokyo, Asian Productivity Organisation. Ishikawa, K. (1985) What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way New York, Prentice-Hall.

Juran, J.M. (1974) Quality Control Handbook New York, McGraw-Hill.

Juran, J.M. (1980) Juran on Planning for Quality New York, The Free Press.

Juran, J.M. (1988) Quality Planning and Analysis: from Product Development New York, Prentice-Hall.

Jessup, G. (1991) Outcomes: NVQ’s and the emerging model of education and training Falmer Press, Brighton.

Kowalski, J. Oates, A. (1993) Leadership for School Restructuring Educational Administration Quarterly 30 (4) p498- 518.

Learning and Skills Act (2000), London, HMSO.

Learning and Skills Council (2001a) Continuous Improvement in the Quality of Provision and Learners Perforamance Post 16: A guide for Providers on Self-Assessment and Development Planning Coventry, LSC.

Learning and Skills Council (2001b) Raising Standards in Post-16 Learning: Self Assessment and Development Plans Coventry, LSC.

Learning and Skills Council (2001c) The Councils National Framework for Reviewing the Performance of Providers: A Briefing Document Coventry, LSC.

Leithwood, K. (1994) Leadership for School Restructuring Educational Administration Quarterly 30(4) p498-518.

Leithwood, K. Jantzi, D (1999) ‘Transformational School Leadership Effects: A Replication School Effectiveness and School Improvement vol 10, No 4, pp451-479.

Madu, C. (1998) Handbook of Total Quality Management London, Kulver Academic Publishers. Moller, C. (1987) Personal Quality Denmark, Time Manager International.

Mosley, D.C. Pietri, P.H, Megginson, L.C. (1996) Management : Leadership in Action New York: Harper Collins pp389-420.

OfSTED (2001a) The Common Inspection Framework for Inspecting Post-16 Education and Training London, OfSTED.

OfSTED (2001b) Inspection Report: Teeside Tertiary College London, OfSTED.

OfSTED (2001c) Inspection Report: Stockport College of Further and Higher Education London, OfSTED.

OfSTED (2001d) Inspection Report: Brooklands College London, OfSTED.

OfSTED (2001e) Inspection Report: Redbridge College London, OfSTED.

OfSTED (2001f) Inspection Report: Suffolk College London, OfSTED.

Owen, J. (1999) A College guide to benchmarking London, FEDA.

Neave, H. (1990) The Deming Dimension Knoxville, Tennesse, SPC Press.

Pardis, G. Small, F. (1996) Demystifying ISO 9000 Harrow, Addison- Wesley.

Peters, T.J. et al (1982) In Search of Excellence New York, Harper and Row.

Peters, T.J. et al (1985) A Passion for Excellence New York, Random House inc.

Peters, T. J. (1988) Thriving on Chaos London, Macmillan.

Peters, T.J. (1992) Liberation Management London, Macmillan.

Porter, L. Tanner, S. (1996) Assessing Buisness Excellence Oxford, Butterworth- Heinemann. Price, P. (2001) Endorsement of Initial Teacher Programmes in England London, FENTO.

Quality Genius (2000) http :// www. Isde.com/qgenius.htm.

Rosander, A. (1991) Demings’ 14 points Applied to Services New York, Dekker INC.

Rose, F. (1989) West of Eden: The End of Innocence at Apple Computers London, Business Books.

Sallis, E. Hingley, P. (1991) College Quality Assurance Systems Coombe Lodge, Staff College

Sallis, E. (1996) Total Quality Management and Further Education Paper Presented at the BEMAS Conference 1991.

Schaltes, P. (1995) The Case Against ISO 9000 London, Kogan.

Sculley, J. (1987) Odyssey: Pepsi to Apple New York, Harper and Row.

Smithers, A. (1991) All Our Furtures Dispatches for Channel 4, London, Channel 4.

Stanton, G. Bailey, B. (2001) VET Under Review in England: trends and developments European Journal of Education , Vol 36, No 1.

Steed, C. (2004) Introducing and Embedding Excellence Sheffield , Sheffield Hallam University.

Stone, J. (1997) Increasing Effectiveness: A Guide to Quality Management London, The Falmer Press.

West-Burnham, J. (1997) Managing Quality in Schools: Effective Strategies for Quality Based School Improvement 2nd Ed. London, Pitman Publishing.

Yanmarino, F. J. Dubinsky, A. J. Spangler, W.D. (1998) Transformational and contingent Reward Leadership: Individual and Group Levels of Analysis The Leadership Quarterly 9 (1) p27-54. Yuki, G. (1994) Leadership in Organisations 3rd Ed Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice-Hall.

Load more

  37

Copy Link