Quality management in Hungarian higher education: organisational responses to governmental policy

This article focuses on responses of higher education institutions to governmental policy. We investigate the influence of organisational characteristics on the implementation of quality management in Hungarian higher education institutions. Our theoretical framework is based on organisational theories (resource dependency and neo-institutionalism), Allison’s models on organisational decision-making processes, and also addresses some of the more specific characteristics of higher education institutions. Our empirical investigation shows that organisational characteristics matter in policy implementation of quality management in Hungarian higher education. Certain organisational variables, viz. leaders’ commitment to the implementation process, the involvement of external consultants, institutional reputation, and bureaucratic and political decision-making processes have strong effects on the implementation of quality management. Characteristics particular to higher education institutions were much less influential.

[1]  Fred I. Greenstein,et al.  Handbook of political science , 1975 .

[2]  B. Clark,et al.  The higher education system : academic organization in cross-national perspective , 1984 .

[3]  Maurice Kogan,et al.  Reforming Higher Education , 1999 .

[4]  Graham Allison,et al.  Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis , 1972 .

[5]  John F. Dalrymple,et al.  Developing a Holistic Model for Quality in Higher Education , 2002 .

[6]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  Robert N. Stern,et al.  The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. , 1979 .

[8]  C. Oliver The Antecedents of Deinstitutionalization , 1992 .

[9]  J. Newton Barriers to effective quality management and leadership: Case study of two academic departments , 2002 .

[10]  Guy Neave,et al.  The Evaluative State Reconsidered. , 1998 .

[11]  William F. Massy,et al.  Honoring the Trust: Quality and Cost Containment in Higher Education , 2003 .

[12]  O. Holsti,et al.  Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis , 1972 .

[13]  Kevin G. Corley,et al.  The Rankings Game: Managing Business School Reputation , 2000 .

[14]  P. Norris Critical citizens : global support for democratic government , 1999 .

[15]  P. Sabatier From Policy Implementation to Policy Change: A Personal Odyssey , 2005 .

[16]  J. C. Smart,et al.  Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , 2001, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research.

[17]  S. Kyvik The Implementation of the Norwegian College Reform , 2005 .

[18]  Alberto Amaral,et al.  Reform and change in higher education : analysing policy implementation , 2005 .

[19]  L. G. Hrebiniak,et al.  Organizational Adaptation: Strategic Choice and Environmental Determinism. , 1985 .

[20]  C. Oliver STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES , 1991 .

[21]  B. Clark,et al.  The Distinctive College , 1970 .

[22]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[23]  Delvin Grant,et al.  Quality management applied to higher education , 2000 .

[24]  Åse Gornitzka,et al.  Governmental policies and organisational change in higher education , 1999 .

[25]  Barbara Gray,et al.  Testing a Model of Organizational Response to Social and Political Issues , 1994 .

[26]  A Franciscus,et al.  Governmental strategies and innovation in higher education , 1989 .

[27]  Robert Birnbaum,et al.  Management Fads In Higher Education , 2000 .

[28]  N. Polsby,et al.  Case Study and Theory in Political Science , 1975 .

[29]  M. Kogan The Implementation Game , 2005 .

[30]  C. Pollitt,et al.  Agency Fever? Analysis of an International Policy Fashion , 2001, Institutions and Governance in Comparative Policy Analysis Studies.

[31]  B. Benjamin Critical Citizens. Global Support for Democratic Governance , 2007 .

[32]  Tony Becher Academic Tribes And Territories , 1989 .