Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

In this dissertation the search for an explanation of the implementation of quality management techniques (QMT) is central. More specifically, what is studied is the extent to which management autonomy, result control and organizational culture affect the implementation of QMT and, more generally, which motives play an important role in this implementation.The research project has a quantitative and a qualitative component. To get a first insight into the influence of management autonomy, result control and organizational culture on the implementation of QMT, explorative regression analyses are conducted on an existing database of 124 Flemish governmental organizations. The results of the analyses show a positive influence of management autonomy (on the level of personnel) and the cultural aspects ‘support of employees’ and ‘promotion within the organization’, and a negative influence of the cultural aspect ‘precision’. The quantitative analyses are followed by a multiple case study, in which the influence of management autonomy, result control and organizational culture is examined more in detail in the Department of Welfare, Public Health and Family (DEP), the Agency of Youth Welfare (AYW) and the Flemish Agency for Disabled Persons (FADP). Within these cases data are gathered through the use of questionnaires, document analysis, interviews and focus groups. In the multiple case study propositions are formulated concerning the role of the research variables in the implementation of QMT, of which either the agency theory(AT) or the social identity theory (SIT) is the basis. The AT and SIT approach the implementation of QMT in a different manner, as a result of which each theory offers different explaining factors for the implementation of QMT. Applied to this project, the AT predicts that QMT are more strongly implemented in those cases that (1) are controlled on results to a larger extent or that (2) hold an organizational culture that is characterized more strongly by control. Using the SIT as basis, the hypotheses are that QMT are implemented more strongly in those cases that (1) have a larger extent of management autonomy or that (2) hold an organizational culture that is characterized more strongly by flexibility. The propositions are tested cross-case to get a view on the validity of the AT and the SIT (from which the proportions are derived) for explaining the implementation of QMT within the multiple case study. This cross-case analysis did, however, not enable us to formulate a valid answer to the question to what extent the AT and the SIT explain the implementation of QMT across the cases, because of a lack of univocal results. The cross-case comparison of the scores on a series of questioned motives for the implementation of QMT that link up with the AT (e.g. to what extent are QMT implemented to give account to the supervising political principal?) or with the SIT (e.g. to what extent are QMT implemented to let other organizations see that the quality of the service is being worked on?), do give an insight in this matter. The analysis shows that the SIT, in general, explains the implementation of QMT within the multiple case study to a smaller extent than the AT. In addition, the AT and the SIT seem to explain the implementation of QMT in the individual cases to a different extent. While in one case the implementation of QMT links up to a large extent with the AT, in another case mostly indications for the SIT as explaining theory for the implementation of QMT are found. To test the applicability of the theories within the individual cases, an extended within-case analysis is conducted after the cross-case analysis. The within-case analysis shows the specific motivations for the implementation of QMT in the individual cases. It reveals that the implementation of QMT in the three cases happens out of a need to legitimize oneself with respect to certain actors (supervising political principals, other organizations, citizens) of which the significance differs in the individual cases. More in particular, within the AYW QMT are implemented to a large extent to give account to the supervising political principal, while the DEP and the FADP largely implement QMT to perform an exemplary function for other organizations. Within the DEP, this concerns, in the first place, other organizations in their policy domain, within the FADP, it concerns interest groups. Referring back to the theoretical framework, the results of the within-case analysis show that the SIT has more explanatory power within the DEP and the FADP than the AT, and the other way around, that the AT explains the implementation of QMT within the AYW to a larger extent than the SIT does. This project has displayed the actors in respect to which three studied cases want to legitimize themselves using the implementation of QMT and it has described the background mechanism of this (e.g. to perform an exemplary function, to give account to political principal). Following on this project, a subsequent study might investigate whether the implementation of QMT does effectively answer the need to legitimize and if the implementation of QMT functions as a legitimacy building/strengthening instrument

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)