Reinforcing pillars for quality culture development: a path analytic model

ABSTRACT

To this date, research on the interplay between organisational structure/managerial and organisational value/psychological elements which impact on educational quality is scarce and fragmented. As a consequence of a lack of knowledge in this area, institutions often address these elements in isolation, moving past integral approaches, which reinforce the organisations’ quality culture. In order to examine interrelationships between context characteristics, work-related psychological attitudes of staff and enhancement practices, a path analysis was performed on data collected from academics with teaching coordination roles. The findings highlight the paramount importance of a ‘human relation’ value orientation; this orientation influences empowerment, commitment and communication satisfaction. Rational goal values and ownership are positively related to quality enhancement practices. It is advocated that institutional policies and strategies directed at educational quality enhancement should leave discretionary space for the availing of academics’ expertise. Nurturing collaborative teaching/learning communities with explicit concern for morale, involvement and development, deserves further cultivation.

KEYWORDS:

• Higher education
• quality management
• quality culture
• quality enhancement
• path analysis

Introduction

Higher education finds itself in a turbulent era, facing challenges of massification, diversification, increased competition and the introduction of consumerist levers to enhance student choice and control over education processes (Brennan and Shah 2000; Naidoo, Shankar, and Veer 2011). These developments, along with attempts to increase effectiveness and efficiency in times when resources are under pressure, have fostered the implementation of systematic quality management approaches in Higher Education Institutes (HEI) (Harvey and Stensaker 2008; Schwarz and Westerheijden 2004). As government policies, particularly in a number of western countries, are redirected towards deregulation and to an emphasis on HEI autonomy, the significance of internal quality management – ‘all activities and processes deliberately organised by HEI to design, assure, evaluate and improve the quality of teaching and learning’ – (Kleijnen et al. 2014, 104) is further amplified (Harvey and Newton 2007; Jarvis 2014).

Notwithstanding its indelible place on institutional agendas, the added value of quality management in higher education is contested. Whereas various authors report on its merits, such as increased transparency on performance indicators, improvement of teaching processes, readiness for change and staff/student involvement (Cruickshank 2003; Kleijnen et al. 2014; Lillis 2012), others express concerns that managerial approaches mainly serve ‘control’ and ‘accountability’ purposes (Brookes and Becket 2007; Newton 2000). Quality management has been reported to generate staff resistance if it exaggerates bureaucracy, relies too heavily on a top-down implementation and strains individual autonomy (Baker et al. 1998; Cruickshank 2003). As academics closely identify with their own (teaching) discipline, the evaluation and assessment of educational quality can touch upon their sense of professionalism (Lueddeke 2003). The evaluation and assessment of education are potentially sensitive matters which have an impact on staff morale (Gordon 2002).

Against this backcloth, the concept of ‘quality culture’ has captured an increased interest of researchers and policy makers in the field of higher education. The concept implies that, in addition to structural/managerial elements, organisational values/psychological elements should be addressed in order to enhance educational quality (EUA 2006). A quality culture can be regarded as a specific kind of organisational culture which encompasses a shared commitment to – and responsibility for – quality, grass-roots involvement of staff and students and an adequate balance between top-down and bottom-up improvement initiatives (EUA 2006).

The importance of aligning quality management with the values and the identity of employees has been well-underpinned by research in business and industry settings (Irani, Beskese, and Love 2004; Maull, Brown, and Cliffe 2001; Powell 1995; Prajogo and McDermott 2005). In higher education, empirical studies have been conducted on the relationship between organisational values and their effectiveness (e.g. Cameron and Freeman 1991; Smart 2003), on organisational culture types and quality management (e.g. Berings 2009; Kleijnen et al. 2014; Trivellas and Dargenidou 2009) and on barriers to the implementation of quality management (e.g. Horine and Hailey 1995; Lomas 2004; Newton 2002). However, there is a paucity of comprehensive studies in higher education on the way in which cultural and managerial characteristics of the institutional context trigger work-related psychological attitudes of academic staff, the way these attitudes interrelate, and their impact on staff’s involvement in practices aimed at educational quality enhancement. Note that the term ‘quality enhancement practices’ is deliberately used in the remainder of this article in preference over ‘quality management’, to more specifically refer to the institutional activities and processes serving educational improvement purposes. The notion of ‘quality management’ is more often associated with control and accountability purposes (Williams 2016).

Attitudes towards – and behaviours of front line academics in – teaching are quintessential for educational quality and its continuous development, through staff’s involvement in quality enhancement of the existing education offered, but also (perhaps even more important) through staff’s direct engagement in the initial design of education and the execution of teaching roles (Westerheijden, Hulpiau, and Waetens 2007). In order to nurture a quality culture, an integral approach which enacts on both organisational values/psychological elements and structural/managerial elements is required (Ali and Musah 2012; Burli, Bagodi, and Kotturshettar 2012; Osseo-Asare, Longbottom, and Murphy 2005). Up to now, limited insight exists in the way these two dimensions interrelate, which causes them to be most often addressed in isolation.

This study aims to investigate the interrelationships between the most important organisational value/psychological and structural/managerial elements for quality culture development. These are represented as a configuration of internal-organisational context characteristics (value orientation, leadership and communication), work-related psychological attitudes of staff (empowerment, commitment and ownership) and quality enhancement practices (Bendermacher et al. 2016; EUA 2006, 2010). The research variables are operationalised in a ‘quality culture survey’. Data collected from academics with teaching coordination roles (affiliated to four different bachelor study programmes) were analysed in order to construct a path analytic model.

Conceptual framework

Throughout this conceptual framework, definitions of the researched variables are provided. Figure 1 depicts the theory-driven hypotheses (referred to in the conceptual framework between brackets/in italics; (H1–H10)).

Figure 1. Hypothesised path relationships between quality culture variables.

Note: the line connecting the ‘leadership’ and ‘organisational values’ variables reflects that a relation between these variables is expected, but that the direction of causality is unknown.

Organisational culture: a competing values approach

‘Organisational culture’ in the setting of HEI can be defined as

The collective, mutually shaping pattern of norms, values, practices, beliefs and assumptions that guide the behaviour of individuals and groups within an HEI and provide a frame of reference within which to interpret the meaning of events and actions on and off campus (Kuh and Whitt 1988, 28).

As research in the field of organisational culture progressed, the shared norms and values approach, as implied by this definition, appeared to have its flaws: employees are part of – and are influenced by – multiple, coinciding subcultures, which can encompass different, possibly competing values. These subcultures emerge through a shared belonging to an academic profession (research, teaching), discipline, type of institution or specific department within the institution (Austin 1990; Chandler 2011; Lomas 1999; Välimaa 1998). The competing values model, as developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), provides a framework for assessing organisational value orientation. The model consists of two dimensions: external versus internal value orientation and focus on control versus flexibility (Kleijnen et al. 2014). Organisations can identify with and strive for different values at the same time: to be structured and stable (‘internal process’; internal/control orientation), to be a collaborative community (‘human relation’; internal/flexible orientation), to be proactive and innovative (‘open system’; external/flexible orientation) and to be goal-oriented and efficient (‘rational goal’; external/control orientation) (Berings 2001; Cameron and Quinn 1999).

Linking organisational value orientation, leadership and communication

The value orientation within HEI forms a frame of reference for its ‘leaders’ and inspires their behaviour. Bland et al. (1999, 1228) note that ‘How leaders perceive the organisation greatly affects what they believe are the best ways to influence it’. In other words, whereas leaders themselves are likely to be influenced by the organisational value orientation, they are at the same time in a position to reinforce or alter specific orientations (Dannefer, Johnston, and Krackov 1998). This implies the existence of a bidirectional relation (a correlation) between leadership behaviour on the one hand, and organisational value orientation on the other.

According to Bass (1985), positive organisational leadership can be conceptualised as a complementary construct(ion) of ‘transactional’ and ‘transformational’ styles. Transactional leadership entails an exchange relationship between leaders (or managers) and employees (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, and Koopman 1997). It denotes that employees receive valued outcomes (such as wages, promotion and prestige) when they act in accordance with the wishes of higher management. Transactional leadership styles motivate employee behaviour by making clear what is expected and by providing information on the way in which performance is reimbursed. This style fits in well with stable cultures, risk avoidance, efficiency and attention for constraints in resources (Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam 1996).

Transformational leadership styles are focused on broadening employee interests, generating awareness and acceptance of the purpose of the organisation and on motivating employees to go beyond their self-interest for the good of the organisation (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, and Koopman 1997). This style is aimed at finding new ways of working, seeking opportunities and valuing of effectiveness over efficiency. Transformational leaders envision an attractive future and inspire staff to be committed to achieve that future. They provide meaning to staff’s work by enhancing their levels of self-efficacy, confidence, meaning and self-determination (Avolio et al. 2004).

Communication satisfaction in this study refers to the content of organisational messages (what is being communicated) and the ‘communication climate’ (how information is communicated). The organisational value orientation is posited to influence communication satisfaction (H1), since their experienced and preferred value orientation affects staff attitudes pertaining to the management of information and communication practices within the organisation (Brown and Starkey 1994). Moreover, the value orientation promoted by the organisation’s management and support departments is inherently linked to their communication strategy (Quinn et al. 1991). As their position in the organisational hierarchy allows leaders to acquire information needed to develop strategies and policies and act as ‘information distributors’, a positive leadership style (defined in this study as a combination of transactional and transformational leadership behaviours) is hypothesised to contribute to communication satisfaction as well (H2) (Flumerfelt and Banachowski 2011).

Work-related psychological attitudes: empowerment, commitment and ownership

The presence of a supportive organisational context forms a basic requirement for human resources to achieve sustainable growth and performance (Luthans and Avolio 2003). The organisations’ value orientation, leadership and communication can constitute such supportive contextual characteristics and are hypothesised to be positively associated with work-related psychological attitudes: ‘empowerment’, ‘affective commitment’ and ‘ownership’.

Empowerment reflects a cognitive state characterised by a sense of perceived control, competence and goal internalisation (Menon 1999). Affective commitment resembles an emotional attachment to, identification with and involvement in the organisation (Meyer and Allen 1991). Ownership refers to ‘the psychological state in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership or a piece of that target is theirs’ (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2003, 86). Ownership conceptually differs from empowerment as the former asks ‘how much do I feel this entity is mine’, while the latter asks ‘do I feel capable and intrinsically motivated in my work role’ (Van Dyne and Pierce 2004).

Employees have been shown to feel more affectively committed to organisations with which they share values (Lok and Crawford 1999; Meyer, Gagné, and Parfyonova 2010). Previous research in higher education settings indicates that the more policies and practices reflect concern for staff morale and development (a human relation value orientation) and encourage innovation and growth (open systems values orientation), the higher the level of affective commitment experienced by employees (Meyer, Gagné, and Parfyonova 2010; Ovseiko and Buchan 2012). The present study tests the hypothesis that human relation value orientation and open systems value orientation are positively related to teaching coordination staff’s affective commitment (H3 a, b). In addition, since a human relation value orientation aims to promote participation, involvement and staff development, it is expected to have a positive effect on staff empowerment (H4).

Leaders can provide incentives to staff, create a sense of involvement, set a vision which is in line with staff’s norms and values and offer room for staff development and autonomy (Bryman 2007; Meyer and Allen 1991). These positive attributes of transformational and transactional leadership styles are hypothesised to trigger employee empowerment, affective commitment and ownership (H5 a, b, c).

Another important internal context element relevant for organisational performance is access to information (facilitated by and optimal usage of communication channels), as this offers staff the opportunity to learn and develop themselves (Ghani, Hussin, and Jusoff 2009). Adequate internal communication can help reduce uncertainty and equivocality by providing staff with a thorough understanding of their work environment (Thornhill, Lewis, and Saunders 1996). The way in which staff experience the communication climate is hypothesised to contribute to their affective commitment to the organisation and the degree in which they feel empowered in their work (H6 a, b). Hence, adequate communication can be considered a prerequisite for staff to be able to identify with the organisations’ mission, aims and value orientation, and it is through adequate communication and information provision that staff can acquire the knowledge needed to develop a sense of empowerment.

The three work-related psychological attitudes of staff are deemed to interrelate. Since empowered staff members are entrusted with more responsibilities and have considerable opportunities to make decisions, it is expected that staff experiencing higher degrees of empowerment also experience higher degrees of ownership (H7). In addition, staff members who feel empowered and who have a sense of ownership are hypothesised to develop a stronger sense of affective commitment to the organisation (H8 a, b).

Implications for quality enhancement practices

Quality enhancement practices are associated with devoting effort to information management, communication, planning and goal setting (Reitsma 2003). This systematic, structured side of quality enhancement is hypothesised to fit in best with control-oriented value orientations: internal process value orientation (reflecting attempts to improve from an internal-organisational perspective) and rational goal value orientation (reflecting the aim to develop processes and practices in order to respond to evolving external demands) (H9 a, b).

By definition, empowered staff members view themselves as being able to influence their job and work environment in meaningful ways and are likely to proactively execute their responsibilities by, for instance, anticipating problems and acting independently (Spreitzer 1995). Empowered employees possess a certain amount of responsibility, autonomy and decisiveness. These traits of empowered staff members are considered to have a positive effect on quality enhancement practices (H10 a).

Staff members who want to belong to the organisation (referring to their sense of affective commitment) are expected to exert more effort on behalf of the organisation, compared to those who experience a need to belong to the organisation because there are high costs associated with leaving (i.e. continuance commitment) or those who feel they ought to stay, for example because the organisation has invested in them (i.e. normative commitment) (Meyer and Allen 1991). The affective commitment of employees has been reported to be positively correlated with outcomes relevant for the organisation, such as attendance, job satisfaction, performance and organisational citizenship behaviour (Meyer et al. 2002; Marchiori and Henkin 2004; Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran 2005). Highly affectively committed employees are willing to put extra effort into their work and have a tendency to be more concerned with its quality (Meyer and Allen 1991). Therefore, it is postulated that affective commitment contributes to quality enhancement practices (H10 b). The term ‘commitment’ as further used in this article refers specifically to the affective dimension of commitment.

Conventional wisdom suggests that people will take better care of, and strive to maintain and nurture what they perceive to be their own. Research by Vandewalle, Van Dyne, and Kostova (1995) revealed that experienced ownership is associated with a sense of responsibility, pride and the performance of extra role behaviour; constructive work efforts that go beyond the basic required work activities. Teaching coordination staff members who consider educational courses to be ‘their own’ are expected to report higher degrees of quality enhancement practices being realised (H10 c).

Theoretical model and hypotheses

Figure 1 depicts the theoretical framework and direction of hypothesised causal relationships by the unidirectional arrows linking two variables. The line connecting the ‘leadership’ and ‘organisational values’ variables reflects that a relation between these variables is expected, but that the direction of causality is unknown. Leadership and organisational values are independent variables (they are not hypothesised to be influenced by the other included variables; they do not have ‘incoming’ arrows). Communication, empowerment, commitment and ownership are dependent and mediator variables (the variables have both incoming as well as outgoing arrows), while the dependence of quality enhancement practices on other variables is reflected by it only having incoming arrows. Note that for the hypothesised relation between organisational values and communication, no specific hypotheses are formulated for the four individual archetypical orientations. H1 therefore has a more general, explorative character.

H1 The organisational value orientation affects communication satisfaction.

H2 Leadership is positively related to communication satisfaction.

H3 The higher the degree of ‘human relation’ (a) and ‘open systems’(b) values experienced, the higher the degree of experienced commitment of staff.

H4 A human relation value orientation has a positive effect on staff empowerment.

H5 Leadership positively affects empowerment (a) commitment (b) and ownership (c).

H6 Communication satisfaction contributes to staff commitment (a) and empowerment (b).

H7 Empowered staff members experience higher degrees of ownership.

H8 Empowerment (a) and ownership (b) are positively related to commitment.

H9 The more staff experiences a presence of rational goal (a) and internal process values (b), the higher their report of quality enhancement practices being realised.

H10 Empowerment (a) commitment (b) and ownership (c) are positively related to quality enhancement practices.

Research design and methods

Setting and participants

The hypotheses were tested against data collected from the course coordinators of four bachelor’s programmes: Bachelor in Health Sciences, Bachelor in Biomedical Sciences, Bachelor in Medicine and Bachelor in European Public Health, at Maastricht University (NL). All programmes apply Problem-Based-Learning as core methodology, with curricula being structured in a sequence of thematic courses of several weeks. Course coordinators, together with a number of planning group members, are responsible for the quality enhancement of their respective course; they are expected to systematically work on the improvement of education, taking into account both their own experiences as well as other sources of information, e.g. quantitative and qualitative results of student evaluations and input of involved teaching staff (tutors and lecturers). Coordinators report to the study programme’s management team and are accountable for translating strategic decisions of the management team into educational practices. After explaining the background and purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, and the confidentiality of responses, informed consent was obtained from all participants by means of a ‘tick-box’ statement at the start of the digital survey. The study has been approved by the ethical review board of the Dutch Association for Medical Education (NERB dossier number 530).

In total, 123 coordinators were invited to fill out the online survey, which requested staff to reflect on experiences regarding the previous run of their course. Eighty nine responses were collected (including three partly completed surveys), representing a response rate of 72%. Fifty six percent of the respondents are male. Survey respondents were active in the role of course coordinator in the specific programme for respectively <3 years (17%), 3–6 years (40%), 6–9 years (24%), 9–12 years (6%) or >12 years (14%).

Survey development

The ‘quality culture’ survey was constructed by means of combining subscales of existing, well-validated questionnaires, incorporating items of original questionnaires into new scales, and item/scale development by the authors. The final version of the survey consisted of 62 items in total. The survey is included as Appendix A.

Organisational value orientation (24 items) was measured with the ‘Organisational Culture Assessment Index’ (Cameron and Quinn 1999), which includes questions to explore the experienced presence of human relation values (6 items), open systems values (6 items), rational goal values (6 items) and internal process values (6 items). Leadership was measured with six items of the ‘Charismatic Leadership In Organisations’ questionnaire (De Hoogh, Koopman, and Den Hartog 2004).This questionnaire includes both items on transformational leadership originating from the Multifactor Leadership questionnaire as developed by Bass (1985) and items on transactional leadership. Communication satisfaction (six items) was measured with items of standardised communication audits (Downs and Adrian 1997; Postmes, Tanis, and De Wit 2001). Focus was placed on communication flow ‘down the organisation’, i.e. the way course coordinators experience the communication initiated by others in the organisation (support departments and higher management) (Thornhill, Lewis, and Saunders 1996).

Empowerment (six items) was measured with the subscales ‘self-determination’ (reflecting autonomy over the initiation and continuation of work behaviour and processes) and ‘impact’ (the degree to which a person can influence strategic, administrative or operating outcomes at work), derived from the ‘Psychological Empowerment Scale’ (Spreitzer 1995). Commitment (seven items) was operationalised with the ‘Affective Commitment Scale’ as included in the ‘Organisational Commitment Questionnaire’ (Meyer, Allen, and Smith 1993). One additional item, measuring willingness to exert ‘extra effort’ on behalf of the organisation, was derived from the ‘Organisational Commitment Questionnaire’ (Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1979). Ownership (five items) was measured with the subscales ‘self-efficacy’ (one’s belief in the personal ability to accomplish a given task) and ‘accountability’ (the tendency to feel a sense of responsibility for the object of ownership) of the Psychological Ownership Questionnaire (Avey et al. 2009).

Quality enhancement practices (eight items) were measured with items derived from ‘Quality Management Activities Scale’, as developed by Kleijnen et al. (2013), in combination with self-developed items by the authors.

Items of original questionnaires were modified in order to fit in with the specific organisational context. A pilot test was conducted among six former course coordinators to check the survey’s content validity and correct terminology. Since the original subscales and items were adapted, a principal component analysis (with oblique rotation to allow for correlations between components) was conducted to identify whether subscale items sufficiently loaded on one dimension and thus could be interpreted as one concept. Items with insufficient loadings on the variable subscale were removed. Decisions on the final (sub)scale construction were based on the consideration of multiple criteria: extracted communalities, scree plots, total variance explained and the structure matrix (item loading). Computation of Cronbach’s alpha (α) for the subscales led to acceptable results: all scales met the rule of thumb of α > .7 (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). Scale reliability estimates (α) are included in Table 1. Results from the principal component analysis are available from the first author upon request.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, correlations and Alpha Reliability Estimates (on the diagonal) of quality culture variables.

	M^◊	SD	N	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Human Relations	2.87	.62	86	(.79)
2. Internal Process	3.16	.54	86	.17	(.73)
3. Rational Goal	3.18	.52	86	.09	.41**	(.72)
4. Open Systems	2.90	.56	86	.63**	.04	.21*	(.74)
5. Leadership	3.19	.60	87	.56 **	.32 **	.02	.38 **	(.83)
6. Communication	3.05	.73	89	.59 **	.26 *	.05	.43 **	.65 **	(.84)
7. Empowerment	3.99	.65	89	.24 *	−.2	−.07	.18	−.05	.06	(.87)
8. Commitment	3.66	.65	87	.51 **	.19	−.05	.25 *	.34 **	.44 **	.22 *	(.87)
9. Ownership	4.14	.45	89	.01	.05	.03	.03	.06	.07	.32 **	.22 *	(.76)
10. Quality enhancement	3.85	.51	89	.15	.06	.26 *	.16	−.07	.12	.23 *	.19	.39 **	(.76)

Notes: M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; N: Number of observations. ^◊Scale 1–5, 1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree. *Correlation is significant at the <.05 level (2-tailed), **Correlation is significant at the <.01 level (2-tailed); correlations between variables hypothesised to causally relate are presented in bold.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were calculated to describe the population sample. Responses to all items were provided on a 5-point scale; strongly disagree (1); disagree (2); neither agree nor disagree (neutral, 3); agree (4) and strongly agree (5). Subsequently, a path analysis was carried out to test the formulated hypotheses (H1–H10). The standardised path coefficients (β) and their significance provide information on the relative strength of the hypothesised relationship between variables. Standardised coefficients can vary between −1.00 and +1.00 and indicate how many standard deviations a dependent variable will change, per standard deviation increase in its predictor variable. β-weights around .10, .25 and .40 respectively represent small, medium and large effects (Lipsey and Wilson 2001). Coherence between several goodness-of-fit indices was used to determine whether the theoretical model fitted the empirical data, i.e. relative chi-square statistic, normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A further elaboration on these measures and their interpretation is provided in the result section under the heading ‘model fit’.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics, correlations (r) between variables and scale reliabilities (α) in parenthesis on the diagonal. With regard to the organisational value orientation, coordinators indicated to be ‘neutral’ to experienced control-oriented values (internal process; M = 3.16, SD = 0.54, rational goal values; M = 3.18, SD = 0.52). Flexibility oriented values; both with an internal focus (human relations; M = 2.87, SD = 0.62) and an external focus (open systems, M = 2.90, SD = 0.56) also reached a near neutral score, with mean scores being almost equivalent. When drawing to the other ‘context’ related variables, staff indicated to be neutral with regard to communication satisfaction (M = 3.05, SD = 0.73) and also tend to neither agree nor disagree with regard to the presence of (positive) leadership. (M = 3.19, SD = 0.60). The mean scores on work-related psychological attitude variables reveal that, overall, staff members who agree that they feel empowered in their role as coordinator (M = 3.99, SD = 0.65), score ‘moderate’ (between neutral and agreement) with regard to questions concerning their commitment to the study programmes (M = 3.66, SD = 0.54), and agree that they experience a sense of ownership of their course (M = 4.14, SD = 0.45). Moreover, staff members tend to agree with quality enhancement practices being enacted within their respective courses (M = 3.85, SD = 0.51).

The correlation coefficients for variables being hypothesised to interrelate (H1–H10) are presented in Table 1 in bold. These coefficients provided preliminary support for most of the expected interrelations between variables included in the path model. Exemptions (nonsignificant correlations) are the hypothesised relations between leadership and empowerment (r = −.05), communication and empowerment (r = .06), the relation between leadership and ownership (r = .06) and the positive association of both internal process value orientation (r = .06) and commitment (r = .19) with quality enhancement practices. Rational goal value orientation appeared to have no correlation with leadership and communication, whereas, in line with the hypotheses, the other three value orientations were found to be correlated to leadership and communication satisfaction. Both correlations between organisational value orientation and leadership and organisational value orientation and communication satisfaction turned out to be the highest for the human relation value orientation archetype.

Interrelationships between researched variables

Figure 2 presents the path model including tests of the hypothesised relationships between variables as outlined in the conceptual framework; only significant paths are included. Note that the correlation coefficients between organisational value orientations and leadership are presented in Table 1. For a complete overview of path coefficients, standard errors and p-values, please refer to Appendix B.

Figure 2. Path model standardised coefficients of the relations between quality culture variables; *p < .05; **p < .01, *** p < .001.

Note: the relationships between variables depicted in Figure 2 resemble the hypothesised relationships as presented in Figure 1 which were found to be statistically significant; the line connecting the ‘leadership’ and ‘organisational values’ variables reflects that a relation between these variables is expected, but that the direction of causality is unknown.

With regard to H1 (the effect of value orientation on communication satisfaction) the analysis revealed that this hypothesis solely holds ground for the predicted effect of human relation value orientation on communication satisfaction (β = .28, p < .05). Hence, no relation was found between the three other organisational value orientations and communication satisfaction. The analysis also provides support for H2 (a positive relationship between leadership and communication satisfaction (β = .44, p < .001).

Both higher degrees of experienced human relation value orientation and open system value orientation were hypothesised to lead to higher degrees of commitment (H3 a, b). Whereas the analyses support this thesis for the association between human relation value orientation and commitment (β = .46, p < .001), no significant relation was identified between open systems value orientation and commitment.

Human relation value orientation was confirmed to have a positive effect on empowerment (H 4; β = .38, p = <.01). However, no empirical support could be provided for the existence of a (direct) relationship between leadership and the three included work-related psychological attitudes of empowerment, commitment and ownership (H5 a, b, c), nor for the contribution of communication satisfaction to experienced staff commitment and empowerment (H6 a, b).

When turning to the interrelations between the three work-related psychological attitudes, the analyses indicate that more empowered employees experience higher degrees of ownership (H7; β = .33, p = <.001). Only partial support was provided for H8, as the relation between empowerment and commitment was not significant (H8 a), while ownership did relate to commitment: β = .18 at p < .05 level (H8 b). These results imply that an indirect path runs from empowerment to commitment via ownership.

Rational goal and internal process value orientation were predicted antecedents of quality enhancement practices (H9). This hypothesis too was only partly confirmed: a direct medium-sized effect exists for rational goal orientations’ impact on quality enhancement practices (H9 a; β = .29, p < .01). No relation exists, however, between internal process value orientation and quality enhancement practices (H9 b). Finally, of the predicted association of work-related psychological attitudes with quality enhancement practices (H10 a, b, c) only the impact of ownership was found to be significant (β = .32, p = <.001).

The relative amount of variance of the dependent variables (communication, empowerment, commitment, ownership and quality enhancement practices) explained or accounted for by their predicator variables is represented by the squared multiple correlation (R²). R² communication = .50, R² empowerment = .10, R² ownership = .11, R² commitment = .36, R² quality enhancement practices = .26.

Model fit

The coherence between several statistics was used to determine whether the theoretical model fitted the empirical data. The chi-square statistic tests the null hypothesis that the model adequately represents the population data. The nonsignificant Chi-square (p = .365) indicates that the null hypothesis should not be rejected (meaning that the overall fit of the model is satisfactory). It is argued that the chi-square statistic divided by the degrees of freedom is a more reliable fit index, since it compensates for sample size. A relative chi-square of 2 or less indicates a good fit (Ullman 2001). For the tested model Chi-square/df = 1.085. Alternative measures for fit are the NFI, the CFI and the RMSEA. A good fit is indicated by values greater than 0.90 for NFI and 0.95 and greater for CFI (Hu and Bentler 1999). NFI of the tested model = 0.943, CFI = 0.994. For RMSEA, a value of 0 is interpreted as an exact fit and an RMSEA of 0.05 or less indicates a close fit (Browne and Cudeck 1993). RMSEA of the tested model = 0.031, further reflecting an adequate fit of the model.

Discussion

In this study, hypothesised interrelationships between organisational context characteristics (value orientation, leadership and communication), work-related psychological attitudes of academics with teaching coordination roles (empowerment, commitment and ownership) and educational quality enhancement practices were tested in a path analytic model. The findings highlight the paramount importance of a ‘human relation’ value orientation within HEI, as this orientation contributes to staff empowerment and commitment, indirectly impacts on ownership (through empowerment) and has a positive effect on communication satisfaction. Moreover, out of the four archetypical organisational value orientations, the human value orientation was found to have the strongest correlation with positive leadership. Successfully shaping work-related psychological attitudes of academics is crucial, since these attitudes do not only influence ‘in role’ behaviour (acting in accordance with requirements set by the organisation), but also affect ‘extra role’ behaviour (going beyond formal requirements of a role) which is an important determinant of productivity, creativity, innovation and overall organisational performance (Van Dyne and Pierce 2004).

The fact that ‘rational goal’ values which emphasise planning, goal attainment, and efficiency were found to impact on the execution of quality enhancement practices, resembles the significance of the organisational structure/managerial pillar for quality culture development: organisational policies, strategies and guidelines determine to a certain degree whether evaluation and enhancement practices are being executed by staff. This study reveals, however, that in order to reinforce this structural/managerial pillar, as well as the organisational value/psychological pillar for quality culture development, the nurturing of an academic teaching/learning community characterised by collaboration, explicit concern for staff morale and involvement (i.e. reflecting a human relation value orientation) as well as the promotion of ownership, need further cultivation. Especially the implementation of longitudinal faculty development initiatives, which incorporate attention to staff’s motivations for teaching, values and professional identities, can contribute to favourable outcomes in this respect. That is, the intentional community building which coincides with comprehensive faculty development programmes has shown to impact on increased staff self-awareness, acquisition of new skills and expertise, and a higher degree of perceived institutional support for taking on responsibilities which impact on continuous educational quality enhancement (Steinert et al. 2016). The finding that especially the degree of ownership experienced by teaching coordinators impacts positively on the execution of quality enhancement activities implies that it will be worthwhile to increase their involvement in the design of quality evaluation and improvement measures: staff is more likely to act on quality evaluation data which they feel exemplify the key criteria of educational quality in ‘their’ domain.

Counter to the theoretical predictions, no direct relation was identified in this study between leadership and staff’s experienced empowerment, commitment and ownership. One reason for the finding that leadership and work-related psychological attitudes were not related can stem from staff’s self-views as being autonomous and competent professionals. Hence, staff’s professionalism, internal motivation and preference for an independent way of working mitigate their need for strong/directive leadership (Hall and Weaver 2001). Academics might need a more covert form of leadership entailing protection, support and the management of autonomy (Bryman 2007). A second reason for the absent relation between leadership and psychological work-related attitudes can be derived from the performed path analysis: leadership correlates to a variety of value orientations, which suggests that instead of a direct path from leadership to work-related psychological attitudes, an indirect path runs from leadership to these attitudes via the value orientation reinforced by leaders. This is in line with findings of a literature review performed by Bland et al. (2000) on factors influencing successful curriculum development and organisational change in medical schools: leaders’ assertive, participative and cultural/value-influencing behaviours were found to substantially contribute to positive change outcomes, since leaders promoted collaboration, shared values in the light of the envisioned change, built trust and facilitated involvement and open communication.

It is imperative that sufficient resources (time, expertise and adequate evaluation instruments) are available in order to collect data on educational quality and to identify potential areas of improvement (Gerrity and Mahaffay 1998; Kottmann et al. 2016). While it is acknowledged that resource availability inevitably plays a role in quality enhancement practices, the present study refrained from focusing on material aspects in favour of providing insight in ways to successfully shape work-related psychological attitudes of academics. The study paves the way for developing organisational strategies for quality culture development based on empirical research on the interrelationship between organisational values/psychological elements and organisational structure/managerial elements. To our knowledge, this empirical approach to quality culture development is unique in its kind. It is advocated that institutional policies and strategies directed at educational quality enhancement should leave sufficient discretionary space for the availing of academic professionals’ expertise and the promotion of ownership, while leadership in higher education should especially be directed to the promotion of a human relation value orientation.

Limitations

It should be noted that, while the path model included many variables important for the development of a quality culture, it was only able to account for a modest proportion of variance in some variables. Hence, characteristics of the organisational context, work-related psychological attitudes and quality enhancement practices are likely to also be affected by factors outside the model (for instance resource availability). Although the path analysis technique allows for testing plausible, prespecified relations between variables, in itself it cannot distinguish whether a correlation between A and B represents a causal effect of A on B, a causal effect of B on A, mutual dependence on other variables C, D or a mixture of these (Stage, Hasani, and Amaury 2004). However, in this study, the adequate application of the path analysis technique and the interpretation of relationships between the researched variables were supported by a sound theoretical framework (Leppink 2015). Caution is warranted on the generalisability of the findings as the data collected is context specific. In countries characterised by collectivistic values, higher education staff’s behaviour is more likely to be influenced by shared norms, group interdependence and experienced obligations toward the organisation, instead of individualism, independence and the primacy of personal needs and rights, which is more typical for western cultures (Wasti 2003).

Suggestions for further research

The empirical insight in ways to promote quality culture development in HEI can be augmented by conducting cross-institutional studies on this theme. Moreover, qualitative research on quality culture will prove to be valuable in terms of its potential to enlarge the understanding of academic staff’s perceptions and behavioural determinants which have not been incorporated in the present study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

M. G. A. oude Egbrink http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5530-6598

Appendix A Quality Culture Questionnaire

Table

Statements	N	Mean	Min	Max	SD
Human Relations Model
1. The study programme has a very personal character. It is like an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves.	86	2.67	1	5	0.94
2. The leadership in the study programme is generally considered to exemplify mentoring, facilitating or nurturing	86	2.76	1	4	0.91
3. The management style in the study programme is characterised by teamwork, consensus and participation.	86	3.01	1	5	0.91
4. The glue that holds the study programme together is loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to the study programme runs high.	86	3.40	2	5	0.84
5. The study programme emphasizes human development. High trust, openness and participation persist.	86	2.93	1	4	0.88
6. The success of the study programme is defined on the basis of the development of human resources, teamwork, commitment, and concern for staff	86	2.47	1	5	0.82
Open Systems Model
1. The study programme is very dynamic and entrepreneurial. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks.	86	2.71	1	5	0.87
2. The leadership in the study programme is generally considered to exemplify entrepreneurship, innovation or risk taking.	86	2.81	1	5	0.89
3. The management style in the study programme is characterised by innovation, freedom and uniqueness.	86	2.93	1	5	0.82
4. The glue that holds the study programme together is commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis on being on the cutting edge.	86	2.99	1	4	0.74
5. The study programme emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating new challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued.	86	2.97	1	4	0.80
6. The success of the study programme is defined on the basis of having the most unique or newest teaching methods. The programme is leading in innovation of education.	86	2.97	1	4	0.90
Rational Goal Model
1. The study programme is very result-oriented. A major concern is to get the teaching job done. Teachers are achievement oriented (value high evaluation scores).	86	3.56	1	5	0.76
2. The leadership in the study programme is generally considered to exemplify a no-nonsense, result-oriented focus.	86	3.10	1	5	0.84
3. The management style in the study programme is characterised by competitiveness with other programmes, high demands and achievement.	86	3.12	1	5	0.89
4. The glue that holds the study programme together is the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment.	86	3.41	1	5	0.71
5. The study programme emphasizes competitive actions and achievement.	86	2.98	1	5	0.78
6. The success of the study programme is defined on the basis of outpacing the competition. Competitive educational leadership is key.	86	2.91	1	5	0.85
Internal Process Model
1. The study programme is very controlled and structured. Formal processes generally govern what people do.	86	3.00	1	5	0.84
2. The leadership in the study programme is generally considered to exemplify coordinating, organising, or smooth-running efficiency.	86	2.73	1	5	0.85
3. The management style in the study programme is characterised by conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships.	86	3.26	1	5	0.74
4. The glue that holds the study programme together is formal rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running organisation is important.	86	3.33	1	5	0.73
5. The study programme emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficiency, control and smooth operations are important	86	3.24	1	5	.853
6. The success of the study programme is defined on the basis of efficiency. Smooth scheduling and efficient organisation of education are critical	86	3.37	1	5	.921
Leadership: charismatic/transactional
1. Can be believed and relied upon to keep its word.	87	3.40	1	5	0.77
2. Can be relied upon to meet its obligations.	87	3.49	2	5	0.65
3. Keeps control and takes charge when problems arise.	87	3.07	1	5	0.86
4. Has a vision and imagination on the future of the study programme.	87	3.16	1	5	0.93
5. Is able to get the study programme’s staff enthusiastic about its ideas.	87	2.76	1	5	0.86
6. Highly values clear agreements.	87	2.62	1	5	0.96
Communication: vertical/strategic
1. I was adequately informed about changes within the study programme	89	3.13	1	5	1.04
2. The study programme management regularly took the initiative to discuss educational issues with me.	89	2.85	1	5	1.12
3. I received sufficient feedback from the study programme management about the work I did as a (vice) coordinator	89	2.87	1	5	0.91
4. I received sufficient information on the study programme’s policies and goals.	89	3.12	1	5	0.92
5. The communication within the study programme motivated and stimulated an enthusiasm for meeting the study programme’s goals.	89	2.83	1	5	0.97
6. I received adequate information, which was needed to do my job as a (vice) coordinator	89	3.47	1	5	0.88
Empowerment
1. As a (vice) coordinator, I could decide on my own in how to go about doing my work.	89	3.78	1	5	0.93
2. As a (vice) coordinator, I had considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I did my job.	89	3.82	1	5	0.85
3. As a (vice) coordinator, I had significant autonomy in determining how I did my job.	89	4.03	1	5	0.75
4. My impact as a (vice) coordinator on what happened in the course/cluster was large.	89	4.04	1	5	0.81
5. As a (vice) coordinator, I could influence what happened in the course/cluster.	89	4.33	1	5	0.78
6. As a (vice) coordinator, I had a great deal of control over what happened in the course/cluster.	89	3.93	1	5	0.88
Commitment
1. I would be very happy to keep on being active in this study programme for the rest of my career.	87	3.66	1	5	0.93
2. I really feel as if the study programme’s problems are my own.	87	3.39	1	5	0.93
3. I feel a strong sense of belonging to this study programme.	87	3.82	1	5	0.87
4. I feel emotionally attached to this study programme.	87	3.77	2	5	0.82
5. I feel like part of the family in this study programme.	87	3.14	1	5	1.03
6. This study programme has a great deal of personal meaning for me.	87	3.75	2	5	0.70
7. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to make the study programme successful.	87	4.10	1	5	0.76
Ownership^a
1. I set high quality goals for the course/cluster I held a (shared) responsibility for.	89	4.31	3	5	0.56
2. I felt my course/cluster made a positive contribution to the quality of the study programme.	89	4.22	3	5	0.62
3. I did not hesitate to tell colleagues in the course/cluster if I saw something that was done wrong.	89	3.93	2	5	0.69
Quality enhancement practices
1. There was sufficient communication with students about evaluation results and potential improvements.	89	3.70	1	5	0.87
2. There was sufficient communication with teachers about evaluation results and potential improvements	89	3.67	2	5	0.82
3. Educational quality management (quality monitoring and improvement) was considered an important task of course/cluster planning group members.	89	3.92	2	5	0.79
4. Student evaluations were used to take concrete measures for improvement before the next running phase of the course/cluster.	89	4.13	1	5	0.76
5. Ad-hoc measures for resolving issues with regard to the organisation of education were taken whenever needed	89	4.19	1	5	0.71
6. Specific attention was spent to safeguard an optimal organisation of education.	89	4.01	1	5	0.87
7. The feedback of teachers (tutors, trainers) was used to further develop the education.	89	4.07	2	5	0.72
8. The results of evaluations were systematically compared with predetermined educational quality criteria or standards	89	3.07	1	5	1.09

^aThree sample items are presented for this scale (total subscale included in the survey consisted of five items). Copyright 2007 Psychological Ownership Questionnaire (POQ) by James B. Avey & Bruce J. Avolio. All rights reserved in all medium. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com. This instrument was modified – by G.Bendermacher – from the original.

Appendix B Path coefficients, standard errors and p-values

Table

			B	SE	Β	p
Communication	<---	Leadership	.534	.120	.435	***
Communication	<---	Human_Relations	.326	.131	.275	.013
Communication	<---	Open_Systems	.118	.136	.089	.386
Communication	<---	Rational_Goal	−.047	.125	−.033	.707
Communication	<---	Internal_Process	.109	.125	.080	.385
Empowerment	<---	Communication	.008	.126	.009	.951
Empowerment	<---	Leadership	−.290	.152	−.267	.057
Empowerment	<---	Human_Relations	.396	.139	.376	.004
Ownership	<---	Empowerment	.226	.069	.328	.001
Ownership	<---	Leadership	.054	.076	.072	.477
Commitment	<---	Ownership	.271	.135	.184	.045
Commitment	<---	Communication	.200	.109	.222	.067
Commitment	<---	Leadership	−.023	.134	−.021	.865
Commitment	<---	Empowerment	.070	.097	.069	.473
Commitment	<---	Human_Relations	.494	.142	.464	***
Commitment	<---	Open_Systems	−.181	.133	−.153	.171
Enhancement	<---	Commitment	.107	.077	.137	.163
Enhancement	<---	Rational_Goal	.289	.101	.293	.004
Enhancement	<---	Internal_Process	−.080	.099	−.084	.420
Enhancement	<---	Ownership	.367	.115	.319	.001
Enhancement	<---	Empowerment	.074	.079	.093	.349

Notes: B: unstandardised path coefficients; SE: standard error; β: standardised path coefficients; p: probability/strength of evidence to reject the null hypothesis. ***p < .001.