This article was downloaded by: [University of Macedonia]

On: 31 October 2013, At: 14:39

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Tertiary Education and Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtem20
Reforms, Leadership and Quality
Management in Greek Higher Education
Antigoni Papadimitriou
a
a
Department of Economics , Aristotle University , Greece
Published online: 21 Nov 2011.
To cite this article: Antigoni Papadimitriou (2011) Reforms, Leadership and Quality Management
in Greek Higher Education, Tertiary Education and Management, 17:4, 355-372, DOI:
10.1080/13583883.2011.602705
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.602705
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Reforms, Leadership and Quality
Management in Greek Higher
Education
Antigoni Papadimitriou*
Department of Economics, Aristotle University, Greece
(Received 25 August 2009; nal version received 30 June 2011)
This article reports on research to form an understanding of how to account whether and how
quality management (QM) has been adopted in Greek higher education. Greece only recently
introduced quality assurance policies. In this study, I will describe governmental reforms related
to QM policies until 2010. An issue that is frequently addressed concerns the role of leadership
for the implementation and facilitation of QM. Therefore, the study will also discuss how leaders
(rectors and vice-rectors) in Greek universities perceived external environmental pressures and to
what extent they adopted (or not) QM. Neo-institutional theory has become a dominant approach
for explaining how organizations adapt to institutionalized pressures for change of their business
theory from their environments and has been applied to different organizational phenomena;
therefore, in order to explain why Greek higher education institutions adopt QM I used the neo-
institutional theory.
Keywords: leadership; management; national systems of higher education; organization
structures; quality; higher education policy/development
Introduction
This article reports on research to form an understanding of how to account
whether and how quality management (QM) has been adopted in Greek higher
education (HE). Only as recently as 2005, the Greek Government established a
national system for quality assurance (QA) in HE. Schwarz and Westerheijden
*Department of Economics, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, 54006, Greece. Email: antigo-
ni@econ.auth.gr
Tertiary Education and ManagementAquatic Insects
Vol. 17, No. 4, December 2011, pp. 355372
ISSN 1358-3883 (print)/ISSN 1573-1936 (online)/11/04035518
2011 European Higher Education Society
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.602705
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

(2004) reported that in the early 1990s, fewer than 50% of European countries
had initiated QA activities at a supra-institutional level, while in 2003, all countries
except Greece had entered into some form of supra-institutional assessment. The
study will describe governmental reforms related to QM policies until 2010.
Schwarz and Westerheijden (2004, p. 6) mentioned that, spontaneous serious
involvement of universities in QA without governmental policies were rare excep-
tions. An issue that is frequently addressed concerns the role of leadership for the
implementation and facilitation of QM. Brennan and Shah (2000) suggested that
in the changing environment, strong institutional management and leadership are
needed because of the greater complexity of the external environment and the
need for faster decision-making to effect the changes essential to ensure future
institutional success and survival. Therefore, the study will also discuss how lead-
ers (rectors and vice-rectors) in Greek universities during 2005 perceived external
environmental pressures and to what extent they adopted (or not) QM.
Greek HE and QM Reforms
The rst Hellenic University of Otto was founded in Athens in 1837. In 1873,
the National Technical University was established, also in Athens. Following the
turn of the century, other universities were established all across Greece. The ori-
ginal governmental laws establishing the organization and operation of the univer-
sities were not amended until 1978. In 1982, an effort was made to bring
university education up to date in Greece by Parliaments passage of new legisla-
tion (frame-law 1268/1982). Karmas, Lianos, and Kalamatianou (1988, p. 264)
stated: the year 1982 will remain a historical landmark for university education
because Greece abandoned a model of university government based on Central
European experiences and practices of the past, which had remained in operation
for over 50years. This law accounts for the major and most signicant reform in
Greek HE since 1932. A signicant number of laws have followed since 1982,
with partial improvements and supplements to the frame-law 1268/1982 that was
entitled The Structure and Operation of Higher Education Institutions and dealt
with democratization. It introduced a new model for the operation of the Greek
universities and remained valid until March 2007.
The Hellenic HE system comprises two sectors (Law 2916/2001): the university
sector, which consists of 23 universities (including the Open University) and the
technological sector, which consists of 16 Technological Education Institutions
(TEIs). It is nationalized and centralized. The Greek Constitution referred to the
state control on the universities through the Ministry of National Education and
Religious Affairs (YPEPTH).
1
The need for state control derived primarily from
the fact that, according to the Greek Constitution, universities are state-nanced
institutions. Article 16 of the Constitution gave universities the privileges of full
autonomy and academic freedom, but in other aspects, state control remained par-
amount. Constitutionally, universities are autonomous institutions; however, their
mission is uniformly determined by the law. Every university operates according to
356 A. Papadimitriou
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

the frame-law 1268/1982, and every national report or each universitys report
mentions how it complies with that law. The frame-law considered values and
principles of democracy, collective participation, accountability and transparency.
It also considered the rationale of the organization, personnel and the educational
structure of the Greek HE system. These values and principles obviously reect
the regulations concerning decision-making and leadership. Karmas et al. (1988,
p. 264) noted that the frame-law 1268/1982: gives the right to the students and
to other interested bodies of the university community to participate, for the rst
time in Greece, in matters concerning university government and in decision-
making processes. These authors also noted that:
sometimes ideological and political considerations have become the predominant crite-
ria for making decisions: the most obvious (and perhaps most important) example is
the election for a three-year term of the Rector and the two Vice-Rectors. . . Since
1982, when the new model of university government was introduced, the election of
the Rector has become a political issue involving maneuvers, alliance, etc. (p. 265)
However, every university develops its own vision for quality and continuing
improvement.
The frame-law 1268/1982 for the Greek universities stipulates four distinct lev-
els of academic structure inside the university: institution, school, department and
division. Each academic unit has its own leadership and decision-making structure.
Rectors and vice-rectors form the leadership in Greek universities. There is a hier-
archical relation between the four levels of academic structure concerning leader-
ship and decision-making, with the institution lying at the top and with the
division lying at the base (Table 1). The nal authority for setting up new aca-
demic units and for renaming, merging, splitting or closing down existing aca-
demic units belongs to the YPEPTH. The number of new students enrolled in
each university and department is predetermined by the YPEPTH through the
Pan-Hellenic examinations.
In 2005, another legislative reform took place. The law 3374/2005 regulates QA
in HE, the establishment of the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation Sys-
tem and the Diploma Supplement. Until 2005, QA and evaluation had been
Table 1. The structure of leadership and decision-making in Greek universities
Academic level
Authority Institution School Department Division
Governance leadership Rector
(+vice-rectors)
Dean Head
(+deputy head)
Director
Decision-making
(superior/major)
Senate General assembly General assembly Assembly
Decision-making
(inferior/minor)
Rectors board Deans board Governing council
Executive Rectorate council Deans board Governing council
Greek HE Reforms, Leadership and Quality Management 357
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

addressed almost continuously at the governmental level (Asderaki, 2009; Biliris,
2004; Kyriazis & Asderaki, 2008; YPEPTH, 2003, 2005, 2007). Asderaki (2009,
p. 113) noted that: in the early 1990s an attempt was made to introduce
institutional or departmental evaluation (article 24 Law 2083/1992, September 21,
1992) but met strong reactions from the opposition political parties and
universities as well. Already in 2003, the National Report in the Bologna Process
mentioned that what was to become the 2005 law was under consultation before
the Greek Parliament. This law was submitted to the Greek Parliament for discus-
sion, following the Bergen meeting on May 30, 2005. Then, the law was passed
on July 10, 2005 and was published on August 2, 2005 (Law 3374/2005, Greek
Government paper issues, FEK- 189/2005). However, it only became an active
law (policy) in 2007. According to this law the Greek QA system is composed of
two levels: internal assessments, and external evaluation and review schemes.
There is a single national agency in charge of QA. It aims at quality improvement
through external evaluation. The Hellenic Quality Assurance Agency for Higher
Education (ADIP) website appeared for the rst time in March 2007. It said that
the QA system and assessment aspired to support universities in their efforts to
continuously improve quality and to advise the government on the necessary
actions and policies to be taken to that end. At the same time, it aims to improve
the transparency, comparability and accountability of Greek HE. Universities are
encouraged to set up their own internal QA mechanisms to provide a sound basis
for external evaluation. The aim is to effectively combine institutional autonomy
and accountability within the national quality regulations framework. Furthermore,
teaching staff, administration personnel and students are viewed as the main par-
ticipants and contributors to this process.
In the 2007 National Report for the Bologna Process, there was a nal section
concerning future challenges. It said:
One of the main challenges is the attempt to reorganize and modernize the higher edu-
cation system in order to meet contemporary challenges, the Lisbon goals and satisfy
the need for quality, openness and attractiveness. In addition, we [YPEPTH] could not
omit the challenges brought about by: The complete revision of the Framework Law
concerning higher education since 1982 providing HEIs [Higher Education Institu-
tions] with more autonomy and exibility. (YPEPTH, 2007, p. 22)
Reform of structure and operation of universities was the most recent law (3549/
2007) that (in 2007) the YPEPTH launched. This transformation law introduced
many changes, of which the most relevant concerned decision-making and leader-
ship structures and processes, as well as the introduction of strategic planning.
Thus, according to Kyriazis and Asderaki (2008, p. 43): through the Four-year
Development-Academic Planning established HEIs will be able to handle their
nance more effectively and to plan ahead their teaching and research activity
according to their mission, their special goals and prole. In addition, this law
obliges universities to ll the position of University Secretary (managerial posi-
358 A. Papadimitriou
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

tion). On the surface, it would appear that this law attempts to introduce transfor-
mation in Greek HE with a focus on performance improvement and efciency.
Each university in Greece was required under the 2005 law to establish an insti-
tutional QA unit, namely MODIP, to coordinate and support evaluation proce-
dures. This unit was to be chaired by the universitys vice-rector and involved
representatives of the academic and administrative staff. Additionally, each aca-
demic department appointed an Internal Evaluation Committee, namely OMEA,
in order to collect data, documents and information in order to develop the
departments self-assessment report. From the academic year 20092010, the new
Ministry of Education requires all HEIs to submit a self-assessment report and to
invite external evaluators for review. Without adoption of evaluation, departments
will face problems in relation to their operation (funding and human resources).
As noted earlier, according to the Greek Constitution universities are state-
nanced institutions. Additionally, the June 2010 Rectors conference discussed
managerial and efciency procedures in relation to the future of Greek HEIs. Spe-
cial attention was focused on departments that do not perform well in terms of
attracting new students and where departments from different HEIs (Universities
and TEIs) offer similar programmes within the same city.
Context and Theoretical Framework
European governments have taken steps to include quality arguments in their poli-
cies for better HE systems. Van Vught (1996, p. 185) stated that: the academic
ideals and practices of the nineteenth century are no longer automatically accepted
by social actors outside the universities. The Humboltian University is confronted
with an increasing pressure to see its relevance and accountability. Huisman,
Stensaker, and Kehm (2009, p. xv) observed: the agenda-setting functions of
Bologna can imply symbolic and strategic use of the [Bologna] process as exempli-
ed when different countries use Bologna to implement reforms with a more
domestic agenda. I agree with the authors view that the: Bologna umbrella has
created a new space for policy-making which indeed is unprecedented in HE, and
[it makes] the whole process of policy making more unpredictable and interesting
than ever.
QM has become a buzzword among policy-makers and consultants who assume
that a more systematic and managerial approach in universities and colleges will
help them to improve universities performance. However, the actual capacity of
the modern university to respond to change has remained an enigma (Johnson,
Hanna, & Olcott, 2003, p. vii). Perhaps the greatest challenge for the university in
the knowledge age is determining how to balance its historic traditions and heritage
with powerful societal forces for change. For example, Johnson et al. (2003), writ-
ing about change in the modern university, stated that vision for change must come
from inside the institution, at the department and college levels. They argued that
leadership, technology and academic culture are interconnected dimensions of
managing organizational change. Change is reputably even more difcult in Greek
Greek HE Reforms, Leadership and Quality Management 359
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

HEIs. Bonikos (1998, p. 87) observed: Greek universities are notoriously rigid
establishments that lack the exibility institutions require to respond imaginatively
and reasonably to new academic needs and priorities. Therefore, introducing
change in a Greek university has always been a battle between status quo preserva-
tionists and evolutionary expansionists who welcome new forms.
From a neo-institutional view, organizations (such as universities) operate in an
environment dominated by rules, requirements, understandings, assumptions,
beliefs and procedures (scripts) about what constitute appropriate or acceptable
organizational forms and behaviour (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Oliver, 1991; Powell
& DiMaggio, 1991). Schwarz and Westerheijden (2004) stated that QA as a
separate instrument in university management and in government policy started in
the 1970s (in the USA) and 1980s (in Europe), when it was discovered as a new
management tool in industry that mimicked the success of the Japanese economy.
They interpreted this from a European perspective as both the old isomorphism
drive to copy whatever seemed successful in US HE and the new isomorphism
drive to copy whatever seemed successful in industry. This brings us to the con-
cept of isomorphism, one of the central elements of neo-institutional theory,
denoting that institutions tend to copy other institutions that seem to be success-
ful. In neo-institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), three mechanisms can
be identied through which isomorphic change occurs: coercive forces that stem
from political/legal inuence and the striving for legitimacy; mimetic forces result-
ing from standard responses to uncertainty; and normative forces associated with
professionalization. Distinguishing the three mechanisms gives additional insight
into what drives change (i.e. adoption of QA policies and/or QM) in HEIs. Neo-
institutional theory has become a dominant approach for explaining how organiza-
tions adapt to institutionalized pressures for change of their business theory from
their environments and has been applied to different organizational phenomena
(Csizmadia, 2006; Gornitzka, 1999; Sporn, 1999, etc.).
In this context to explain why universities adopt QM I need to identify the
underlying factors that lead to adoption of QM. The QM literature suggests that
QM can be effective only if properly supported by top administrators. Learning
from their experiences with isomorphic pressures that inuenced universities to
adopt QM must be a valuable source of information that can be used to examine
organizational change.
University Leaders Perceptions about QM
A survey method was chosen for quantitative and qualitative data collection in this
study. This study was conducted in 2005 (MayDecember) when the 2005-law
was not active. There were no published instruments known to assess the organi-
zational factors that inuence the adoption or non-adoption of QM in Greek HE.
I used a questionnaire derived from the US Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award Criteria for Performance Excellence in Education (hereafter simply MB)
360 A. Papadimitriou
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

(NIST [National Institute for Standards], 2005). I used the MB, mostly a
US-based model, as a survey tool, even though the empirical sample is located in
Europe. Major reasons for this included: MB has assisted educational institutions
with self-assessment already since 1995; sources regarding MB (NIST website)
were more accessible than EFQM; it was piloted and used for HE (Seymour,
1996) and therefore, the literature on it was richer (e.g. Blazey, Davison, & Evans,
2003; Conyers & Evy, 2004; Ruben, 2004, etc.).
The core values and concepts of the MB criteria are embodied in seven catego-
ries: (1) Leadership, (2) Strategic Planning, (3) Student, Stakeholder and Market
Focus, (4) Measurement Analysis and Knowledge Management, (5) Faculty and
Staff Focus, (6) Process Management and (7) Organizational Performance Results.
I used these categories as a road-map to examine leaders perceptions in relation
to isomorphism. They provided me with information regarding universities leader-
ship. Additionally, these categories enabled the collection of specic data about
the extent to which QM was being implemented (or not) in Greek universities.
Operational Denitions and Categories
Isomorphic pressures. It has to be noted that this questionnaire does not address
coercive pressure since the QA law in 2005 had just been submitted to the Greek
Parliament for discussion. Figure 1 presents the chronological sequence of QM
reforms in Greek HE and the surveys time mark. Normative pressure in this ques-
tionnaire was linked with several items and categories: items on benchmarking and
on communication of QM practices, Categories 3 and 5.
Mimetic pressure was linked to two survey items from Category 2 and another
from Category 4. Thus, when a university compares its performance indicators
and measurement with other similar institutions, it suggests mimetic pressure.
Moreover, this practice (comparing information indicators and measurement)
would be proper if it were included in the universitys strategic planning. However,
this statement perhaps from one readers eye could be interpreted as norma-
tive pressure. There are several reasons to interpret these questions as mostly
mimetic pressure, primarily because, unlike most other questions in the MB sur-
vey, they stress following other universities, i.e. mimetic behaviour.
Leadership. The Leadership and the leadership triad (Categories 13) from the
MB examine how universities leaders address their organizational values,
Figure 1. Chronological sequence of QM reforms in Greek HE and surveys time mark
Greek HE Reforms, Leadership and Quality Management 361
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

directions and performance expectations, as well as a focus on students and stake-
holders, student learning, faculty and staff empowerment, innovation and organi-
zational learning.
Quality management. Literature indicated that QM includes dimensions such as
formalization, centralization, complexity, resources, aims, scope, methods and
models. These inputs are connected to a universitys continual improvement pro-
cess which provides the basis for evaluating what is being accomplished.
Methodology
The questionnaire included one question such as: Do you have any QA system?
which required yes or no responses. Additionally it included 73 statements on
the seven MB categories to evaluate the importance and implementation rate of
the MB criteria. Each of the seven categories was subdivided into a number of
statements. For each statement, two categories were formatted with dual scale
using a 110 scale (1 was none, 10 was highest): the extent to which the rec-
tor or vice-rector regarded this statement as important (the importance rate) and
the extent to which the rector or vice-rector believed that the university imple-
mented this practice (the implementation rate). Readers interested in the actual
questionnaire could request a copy from the author.
Findings
The population of the survey consisted of all 20 operating universities. The target
respondents were the rectors and vice-rectors of these universities (homogeneous
sample, Kerlinger, 1973). In total, 65 individual respondents (rectors and vice-rec-
tors) were asked to complete the questionnaire. From 20 universities, nine
responded within a six-month period, and two explicitly refused to participate.
The nine universities provided a response rate of 45% (9/20). The individual
response rate was 14% (9/65). Responses from only nine universities may not
allow for generalization. It has to be realized, however, that Makridakis, Caloghi-
rou, Papagiannakis, and Trivellas (1997, p. 400) were satised with a 15%
response rate in their survey among Greek CEOs: the response rate is good for
mailed questionnaires, in particular since it required more than 1h for completion
and necessitated time from extremely busy people like CEOs or other executives.
In my case, beyond Makridakis et al.s explanation, I had to realize that the survey
took place in May 2005, and it correlated with the Bergen meeting and the pre-
sentation of the QA law by YPEPTH. Kiriazis and Asderaki (2008, p. 56) noted
that:
there was no quality assurance system in Greece until 2005. However, Greece commit-
ted, within Bologna Process, in Berlin in 2003 to develop quality assurance systems
according to standards and guidelines that ENQA and its partners (EUA, ESIB,
362 A. Papadimitriou
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

EURASHE) would elaborate. Therefore, just before Bergen, a draft law was submitted
to parliament and nally adopted in July 2005.
The years around the 20052007 legal reforms were not auspicious for research
on QM in Greece. But Greece is an environment that is internationally notorious
for its difculty for conducting empirical social science research: accordingly, very
low levels of cooperation had to be expected (as also found by Bourantas & Pap-
adakis, 1996; Makridakis, Caloghirou, Papagiannakis, & Trivellas, 1996; Spanos,
Prastacos, & Poulymenakou, 2002).
Isomorphic Pressures
Data indicated that both normative and mimetic pressures were perceived as high
in almost all nine cases and there was almost no inter-university variation between
these pressures. It was, rst of all, interesting that all universities were seen to be
in a very similar situation. However, due to the virtual absence of variations in
normative and mimetic pressures, further analysis on the inuence of different
pressures on different levels of QM could not be performed.
Leadership
I recoded the data of MB categories which best described the leaders perception
into four categories. I used a combination of MB scoring guidelines to categorize
the leadership excellence (LE). Implementation rates from the leadership triad
together make up what I call the LE. If the leadership score on the relevant items
had an average between 1 and 2.5, it meant that the LE was in the early stage of
transition (A). Scores between 2.6 and 5 suggested that the LE was in the
beginning of systematic approach (B). Scores between 5.1 and 7.5 suggested a
systematic fact-based process in some part of the organization (C). Scores
between 7.6 and 10 suggested that the leadership approach is well integrated
(D). I did not have to worry about scores close to 910, which according to the
MB publication is fully integrated. Table 2 depicts the leadership mean score
from the implementation rate Leadership and the last row presents the resulting
LE. To maintain anonymity, I encoded each university with a number (U1U9).
Two of the nine universities scored much lower than the others with regard to
leadership. It is remarkable that the two low-scorers also indicated clearly lower
implementation of QM (see Table 3).
Quality Management
Figure 2 depicts the overall results for the MB categories. It compares the mean
scores, which were derived from the Greek leaders perceptions (with regard to
importance and implementation).
The overall importance scores of the survey ranged from a high of 10 to a low
of 3. These ndings suggest how the Greek leaders assessed the MB criteria and
Greek HE Reforms, Leadership and Quality Management 363
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

reveal the degree of pressure that they felt and how they prioritized their needs.
How leaders prioritize their strategy was further elaborated through the respon-
dents implementation scores. Whereas the importance rate indicated their feeling
of pressure, the implementation rate indicated the actual degree of QM adoption.
The implementation rate was lower than the importance rate within universities in
all MB categories. The exception was that two universities scored equally in
importance and in implementation rate in two categories: Process Management
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
L
.

I
m
p
o
r
t
.
L
.

I
m
p
l
.
S
t
r
.
P
l
.

I
m
p
.
S
t
r
.

P
l
.

I
m
p
l
S
t
u
d
.

I
m
p
r
t
.
S
t
u
d
.

I
m
p
l
.
M
e
a
s
.

A
n
.

I
m
p
o
r
t
.
M
e
a
s
u
r
.

A
n
.
I
m
p
l
.
F
a
c
u
l
t
y
.

I
m
p
.
F
a
c
u
l
t
y

I
m
p
l
.
P
r
o
c
.

M
a
n
.
I
m
p
o
r
t
.
P
r
o
c
.
M
a
n
I
m
p
l
.
P
e
r
f
.

R
e
s
u
l
t
.

I
m
p
o
r
t
P
e
r
f
.
R
e
s
u
l
t

I
m
p
l
.
Figure 2. Overall results for the MB categories: importance and implementation rates
(averages of nine universities)
Notes. MBNQA categories as follows: L. Import. = Leadership Importance; L. Impl. =
Leadership Implementation; Str. Pl. = Strategic Planning; Stud. = Students, Stakeholders, and
Market Focus; Measur. An. = Measurement Analysis and Knowledge Management; Faculty =
Faculty and Staff Focus; Proc. Man. = Process Management; Perf. Result = Organizational &
Performance Results.
Table 2. Leaders perspectives on leadership
Leadership U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9
Leadership mean score 7.6 2.2 7.6 7.8 5.7 7.3 6.0 2.7 6.8
Leadership excellence C A C C B B C B B
Table 3. Leaders perspectives on QM stage
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9
QM stage D L A D E E D E D
Notes. L, lacking QM; E, embryonic; D, developing; and A, advanced QM.
364 A. Papadimitriou
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

and Organizational Performance Results. In this survey I also measured non-
opinion items. Fowler (1993, p. 165) stated that when respondents are asked for
the opinions or perceptions of things beyond their direct experience, a non-
opinion response is a potentially meaningful answer, not missing data. The items
with most non-opinion responses were from three universities and related to
Measurement analysis and knowledge management. To analyse the data, I
substituted non-opinion with a score of 1.
The highest implementation rate status was Process Management. Implemen-
tation scores indicated how the university reacts to pressure. Measurement Analy-
sis and Strategic Planning were in last place. These ndings suggested that the
responding universities paid attention mostly to Process Management and least
to closing loop from process management back to the leaderships analysis and
strategy.
I used two ways to examine the adoption of QM, since formalized QM was
almost absent in Greek universities until 2005. As noted earlier, this study was
conducted in 2005 (MayDecember) when the 2005-law was not active. I did that
in order to collect as much data as possible so that less formalized QM practices
could be found. One question posed in the rst part of the MB survey addressed
the presence of a QM system as a whole. All answers to that question were nega-
tive; however, the MB survey instrument also allowed for collecting more detailed
information about separate practices that could be regarded as QM. The activities
were there, but in a disjointed fashion, so that there was not a system of QM in
the respondents eyes. All of this information was integrated into an overarching
assessment of the universitys QM stage, which ranged from lacking (L), to
embryonic (E), developing (D) and advanced (A). Table 3 presents the QM stage
at the universities in Greece from leaders perspectives.
Analysing Gap
The MB is meant as a self-assessment tool. Therefore, a gap analysis was con-
ducted to compare differences between importance (pressure) and implementation
(practice) for each individual university. Table 4 presents the overall importance
and implementation rates and the difference between each university.
Regarding the gap scores, I distinguished two sizes of gaps: a high range from 5
and up (large gap) and a low range from 3 and below (small gap).
Six out of the nine university leaders perceived overall a small gap; in other
words they found that the implementation of QM was fairly balanced with the
Table 4. Average gaps between importance and implementation per university
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9
Importance rate 8.8 7.3 9.6 6.6 5.4 9.9 8.8 10 9.8
Implement rate 6.5 2 7.7 6 4.5 4.4 7.1 4.5 6.8
Greek HE Reforms, Leadership and Quality Management 365
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

pressures (needs). Small gaps were present in universities which had reached the
higher stages of QM (Table 3). In addition, a small gap was noted in one univer-
sity in the embryonic QM stage.
Regarding the LE, small gaps occurred mostly in category C. Large gaps pre-
dominated in the A and B categories of LE (Table 5). Due to the low number of
respondents I did not analyse the gaps per MB category for each university in
detail. I observed, though, that on average the smallest gap occurred in Process
Management and the greatest gap was found in Strategic Planning.
Discussion
Distinguishing the three neo-institutional pressures allows insight into what drove
the adoption of the QA law at the macro-level in Greece. Coercive pressure was
not relevant since the Bologna Process is a voluntary international process, where
no lawmaking or sanctioning by a supranational authority is involved. Focusing on
the other two pressures (normative and mimetic) DiMaggio and Powell (1983,
p. 151) noted that: companies adopt these innovations [in this case, QAAP] to
enhance their legitimacy, to demonstrate they are at least trying to improve. The
basic goals of the Bologna Process, which included cooperation in QA, were
agreed upon by the ministers who were responsible for HE in 1999. The regular
follow-up meetings and the multitude of working groups and seminars to prepare
them, created active networks between ministers, civil servants at education minis-
tries and other experts which were explicitly meant to create, disseminate and har-
monize knowledge and practices (Westerheijden et al., 2010). Thus, this aspect of
the Bologna Process can be seen as normative pressure at the macro-level. Regard-
ing mimetic pressure and policy-making Radaelli (2000, p. 29) mentioned that:
given the level of uncertainty that pervades EU policy-making, it can be argued
that policy transfer should follow the path of mimetic isomorphism in many cir-
cumstances. Asderaki (2009, p. 116) reported that the draft trafc-light scorecard
Table 5. Gap overall analysis
Small Large Total
Leadership excellence
A 0 1 1
B 1 2 3
C 5 0 5
D 0 0 0
QM stage
Lacking 0 1 1
Embryonic 1 2 3
Developed 4 0 4
Advanced 1 0 1
366 A. Papadimitriou
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

was sent to the Ministry of Education in March 2005. It illustrated the negative
image of the country, with red-coloured indicators (1 on a scale of 5):
This made the leadership of the ministry realize that there was no time left for delays
and that decisions concerning the legislative framework for the establishment of the
national quality assurance system had to be taken. . . the Minister presented the draft
law for quality assurance before the Bergen Ministerial conference (2005) and the
country scorecard was improved. (Asderaki, 2009, p. 116)
The general consensus was that Bologna was the main reason that drove the
Greek Government to develop the QA policy for its HEIs. My notions of mimetic
isomorphism arising from the Bologna Process are supported by Ravinet (2008)
when she commented that follow-up activities and the monitoring of progress on
the Bologna Process action lines in participating countries through the stocktaking
exercise: allow comparisons, and create effects on socialization, imitation, and
shamewhich can be powerful means of coercion. She noted that the mecha-
nisms, are even more effective because they are made legitimate by the myth of
the Bologna Process as a mode of voluntary [participation] (p. 365). The colourful
mosaic that showed progress was a reason for the QA policy change in Greece
(Asderaki, 2009), where the threat of public pressure may have been more impor-
tant than the professional arguments on how best to organize QA. It seems that
mimetic pressure was paramount and inuenced the change in policy regarding
QA, namely through the stocktaking exercise.
At the meso-level (universities), overall ndings regarding isomorphism indi-
cated that normative and mimetic pressures were perceived as high in almost all
nine cases, and there was almost no inter-university variation between these pres-
sures. Coercive pressure was not included in this survey, as the QA law was sub-
mitted to the Greek Parliament for discussion only in the period when the survey
was held (May 2005). In much of the empirical literature, the dichotomy between
mimetic and normative pressure is vague. Therefore, studies similar to mine sug-
gested combining normative with mimetic pressure. Nevertheless, I did not follow
this pattern, as the MB criteria gave me the exibility to separate these types of
isomorphic pressures (normative and mimetic).
The MB survey showed different views on QM, bringing the complexity of these
practices into focus. For example, all nine universities answered that they did not
have any QA system. However, evidence on the implementation stage of actual
QM instruments revealed that four out of nine universities were in a developing
stage of QM according to the MB criteria. Maybe QM was such a debatable con-
cept in this period and so foreign to the leaders that even the universities that
implemented QM procedures did not recognize them as such.
Findings suggested that the implementation of QM was most advanced in the
category Process Management. In contrast, implementation of Strategic Plan-
ning and Measurement Analysis and Knowledge Management was least devel-
oped. Furthermore, analysis of the gaps that existed between the desired levels
(a consequence of pressure) and the actual implementation of the different aspects
Greek HE Reforms, Leadership and Quality Management 367
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

of QM in each university also showed that across the nine universities the smallest
gap existed in Process Management and the largest in Strategic Planning.
Process Management is the focal point within the MB criteria for all key man-
agement processes.
One respondent in a personal communication noted that some of the items in
Process Management were related to requirements derived from the frame-law
1268/1982 that all universities in Greece need to follow. This shows that some
coercive pressure existed in the existing regulative arrangements even before they
explicitly started to address QA, where I was looking for normative pressure. It is
possible therefore, that the leaders understand this category better, or were more
familiar with this category as a result of it being part of long-standing practices.
Moreover, they might see this as a means to gain control over the behaviour of the
(otherwise very autonomous) professors, rather than allowing their own behaviour
to be controlled by formalizing strategic planning.
The largest gap appeared in Strategic Planning. This category examines how
the organization sets strategic directions and how it determines key plan require-
ments. It also focuses on how the university evaluates and improves its strategic
planning processes. Blazey et al. (2003, p. 107) noted that: the key role of strate-
gic planning is to provide a basis for aligning the organizations work process with
its strategic directions, thereby ensuring people and process in different parts of
the organization are not working at cross-purposes. The authors observed that
to the extent that alignment does not occur, the organizations effectiveness and
competitiveness is reduced (p. 117). The large gap in this category may indicate
that universities in Greece were not very aligned, yet they could survive and suc-
ceed without this alignment. Universities in Greece are legal entities under public
law. When the laws and states supervision prescribe the mission of universities in
a single, normative statement, there may be no need and even no possibility for
strategic planning.
Furthermore, aspects of the strategic planning category ask the organization to
provide a projection of key performance measures and indicators and target goals
for both short- and longer-term planning time horizons. Blazey et al. (2003, p.
121) observed that, this projected performance is the basis for comparing past
performance and performance relative to competitors and benchmarks, as appro-
priate. Greekand many other Europeanuniversities achieve their goals in a
less competitive environment. Only as recently as 2010, the Ministry of Education
noted that self-assessment reports will connect with the funding formula. In addi-
tion, the number of new undergraduates accepted to each department of each uni-
versity every year is determined by the YPEPTH. In contrast, the universities have
autonomy in the selection of graduate students, although many graduate studies in
Greek universities are offered without tuition fees. The only competition (in terms
of funding) one could see in research, but that did not gure prominently in the
MB survey. Research and teaching activities reect the principle of academic free-
dom. In addition, laboratories have full autonomy in the way they organize and
conduct research. Several laboratories in Greek HE were found to be using the
368 A. Papadimitriou
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

ISO standards (Papadimitriou & Westerheijden, 2010). This implies that there
may also be less room for Greek university leaders to develop strategies. However,
in the rapidly changing environment, particular pressures for adoption of strategic
planning may arise and that may inuence future leaders attention to QM.
The literature emphasized that a major aspect of QM is the senior leaderships
commitment to and active pursuit of continuous improvement. Conyers and Evy
(2004) believed that the basic challenge to senior leaders in educational organiza-
tions is that there are no excuses for not moving ahead. In order to address the
leadership role regarding QM, I developed the Leadership Excellence category.
Only two out of nine universities were much lower than the others with regard to
LE. The LE score was related to QM practices. Evaluation of QM practices sug-
gested that not all leaders were fully committed to or knowledgeable about QM. It
is remarkable that the four laggards (low scores in leadership) indicated lower
implementation of QM. Not surprisingly then, the overall small gaps between
pressure and implementation rates occurred only in universities that also achieved
higher rankings in the leadership category, which requires a systematic fact-based
process in some part of the organization. Here, we need to consider that rectors
in most continental European universities, including the Greek ones, are elected
professors who rotate back to the faculty, in contrast to the US or the UK, where
presidents and vice-chancellors are permanent administrators appointed by a board
and are like corporate CEOs (Rhoades & Sporn, 2002).
Last but not least, non-opinion responses per item and per category were
potentially meaningful answers, as these items and categories might indicate the
extent to which leaders were knowledgeable about them, and perhaps to what
extent they perceived these items to be useful to the universities issues and
problems. Measurement Analysis and Knowledge Management counted for
most of the non-opinion responses in both importance and implementation cate-
gories. Moreover, the same category was rated less important than others by the
majority of the Greek university leaders. Therefore the gap between importance
and implementation in this category was not so large. Category 4 is directly con-
nected with QM; it is the brain centre for the alignment of an organizations
operations with its strategic directions. Blazey et al. (2003, p. 153) observed that
since information and analysis might each be a source of competitive advantage
and productivity growth, Category 4 also may have strategic value and should be
considered as part of the strategic planning process. The fact that Category 4 was
rated as the least important by Greek leaders and that it was the category with
most non-opinion answers indicate that these universities have not mastered the
process of using data for improvement or for decision-making.
Conclusions
In Greek HE, QM is perceived mainly in terms of laws and regulations, and it
seems that the Ministry of Education introduced policies to make universities
Greek HE Reforms, Leadership and Quality Management 369
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

develop formalized management practices. This coercive pressure underlines legiti-
macy issues rather than QM practices geared towards actual quality improvement.
The study illustrates the complexity of the adoption of HE policies and the
implementation of policy related to QM. Under these policies, Greek universities
are required to participate in the evaluation processa coercive pressurethat is
supposed to encourage institutions to develop and implement these policies for
quality enhancement beyond the legal requirements. It would appear that lawmak-
ers expectations were based on the probability that implementation of the policies
would provide, establish and improve a more systematic method of accountability;
thus it would achieve overall improvement of QM across the universities. In such
a case it is possible that the adoption of QM is simply myth and ceremony. Tol-
bert and Zucker (1983, p. 27) indicated that legal requirements do not always
ensure adoption. In other words, the adoption of the law might happen, but
would that lead to actual adoption of QM practices inside universities?
Since the survey was completed, in 2005, the QA law obliged universities to
adopt QA systems (coercive pressure). The 3549/2007-law obliges universities to
develop a four-year strategic plan and to ll the strategically important position of
manager of HEIs. Additionally, from 2010, universities are required to submit
their self-assessment reports, and this practice will connect to their funding for-
mula. Previously, I mentioned that we could not make generalizations due to the
low response rate; except that now, with the announcement of these reforms, it is
probably time to seriously consider my ndings. In neo-institutional terminology,
this change could create not only coercive but also normative pressure in the
future. It seems that the major challenge for the Ministry of Education is to nd
an appropriate strategy to change the academic quality culture. Probably, this puz-
zle could move towards completion if the normative and the mimetic isomorphism
were developed as well as the legal (coercive) one. To achieve the results desired,
QM must become a routine way of working in HEIs. Perhaps surveys on how
leaders perceive QM and/or educational policies are useful for policy-makers in
order to realize what is the missing link from policy introduction to policy imple-
mentation.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the suggestions of Don F. Westerheijden. The
author is indebted to the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions which greatly
improved the paper.
Note
1. From October 2009 the name changed to: Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and
Religious Affairs.
370 A. Papadimitriou
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

References
Asderaki, F. (2009). The impact of the Bologna Process on the development of the Greek qual-
ity assurance system. Quality in Higher Education, 15(2), 105122.
Biliris, H. (2004). The national system of higher education in Greece: Waiting for a systematic
quality assurance system. In S. Schwarz & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Accreditation and
evaluation in the European Higher Education Area (pp. 197206). Dordrecht: Springer.
Blazey, M. L., Davison, K. S., & Evans, J. N. (2003). Insights to performance excellence in educa-
tion 2003: An inside look at the 2003 Baldrige Award Criteria for Education. Milwaukee, WI:
ASQ Quality Press.
Bonikos, D. (1998). Do not change the rules, change the game. In D. Keridis & C. Sfatos
(Eds.), Greek higher education: Prospects for reform (Vol. 1, pp. 8591). New York, NY: Pella
Publishing Company.
Bourantas, D., & Papadakis, V. (1996). Greek management: Diagnosis and prognosis. Interna-
tional Studies of Management & Organization, 26(3), 1332.
Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (Eds.). (2000). Managing quality in higher education: An international per-
spective on institutional assessment and change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Conyers, J., & Evy, R. (2004). Charting your course: Lessons learned during the journey toward per-
formance excellence. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.
Csizmadia, T. G. (2006). Quality management in Hungarian higher education: Organizational
responses to governmental policy. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente, CHEPS.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational elds. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147
160.
Fowler, F. J. (1993). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gornitzka, A

. (1999). Governmental policies and organizational change in higher education.

Higher Education, 38(1), 531.
Huisman, J., Stensaker, B., & Kehm, B. (2009). Bologna, quo vadis? In B. Kehm, J. Huisman, &
B. Stensaker (Eds.), The European higher education area: Perspectives on a moving target (pp. xiii
xx). Rotterdam: Sense.
Johnson, M. E., Hanna, D. E., & Olcott, D. (2003). Bridging the gap: Leadership, technology, and
organizational change for university deans and chairpersons. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Karmas, C. A., Lianos, T., & Kalamatianou, A. G. (1988). Greek universities: An overview.
European Journal of Education, 23(3), 261269.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, Win-
ston.
Kyriazis, A., & Asderaki, F. (2008). Higher education in Greece. Bucharest: UNESCOCEPES.
Makridakis, S., Caloghirou, Y., Papagiannakis, L., & Trivellas, P. (1997). The dualism of Greek
rms and management: Present state and future implications. European Management Journal,
15(4), 381402.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth
and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340363.
NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology). (2005). Baldrige National Quality Pro-
gram. Education Criteria for Performance Excellence. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from http://
www.baldrige.nist.gov/Education_Criteria.htm
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management
Review, 16(1), 145179.
Papadimitriou, A., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2010). Adoption of ISO-oriented quality manage-
ment tools in Greek universities: Reactions to isomorphic pressures. TQM Journal, 22(3),
229241.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Radaelli, C. M. (2000). Policy transfer in the European Union: Institutional isomorphism as a
source of legitimacy. Governance, 13(1), 2543.
Ravinet, P. (2008). From voluntary participation to monitored coordination: Why European
countries feel increasingly bound by their commitment to the Bologna Process. European
Journal of Education, 43(3), 353367.
Greek HE Reforms, Leadership and Quality Management 371
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

Rhoades, G., & Sporn, B. (2002). Quality assurance in Europe and the US: Professional and
political economic framing of higher education policy. Higher Education, 43(3), 355390.
Ruben, B. D. (2004). Pursuing excellence in higher education: Eight fundamental challenges. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schwarz, S., & Westerheijden, D. F. (Eds.). (2004). Accreditation and evaluation in the European
higher education area. Dordrecht/Boston, MA/London: Kluwer Academic.
Seymour, D. T. (1996). The Baldrige in education: Why is it needed, and what the rst year
pilot produced. AAHE Bulletin, 48(8), 914.
Spanos, Y. E., Prastacos, G. P., & Poulymenakou, A. (2002). The relationship between infor-
mation and communication technologies adoption and management. Information & Manage-
ment, 39(8), 659675.
Sporn, B. (1999). Adaptive university structures: An analysis of adaptation to socioeconomic environ-
ments of US and European universities. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure
of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 18801935. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 28(1), 2239.
Van Vught, F. A. (1996). The Humboltian university under pressure: New forms for quality
review in Western European higher education. In P. Maassen & F. A. van Vught (Eds.),
Inside academia ( (pp. 185226). Utrecht: De Tijdstrom. -
Westerheijden, D. F., Beerkens, E., Cremonini, L., Huisman, J., Kehm, B., Kovac, A., et al.
(2010). The rst decade of working on the European higher education area: The Bologna Process
independent assessment Volume 1 Detailed assessment report. Brussels: European Commission,
Directorate-General for Education and Culture.
YPEPTH. (2003). Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs. National Report: Implemen-
tation of the Bologna Process. Athens, Greece: Author.
YPEPTH. (2005). Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs. National Report: Auhor
20042005. Towards the European Higher Education Area: Bologna Process. Athens, Greece:
Author.
YPEPTH. (2007). Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs. National Report Hellas
20052007. Athens, Greece: Author.
372 A. Papadimitriou
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
]

a
t

1
4
:
3
9

3
1

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
1
3