Summary of responses to the exercises for HOS/ADTs/ADRs
The group was given Scott, Coats and Anderson’s (2008) Learning Leaders in times of change ranking of the four factors that most impacted on their ability to perform their roles. For Scott and colleagues, ADTs ranked Managing pressure for continuous change (1), Balancing work and family life (2), Decreased government funding (3), Greater government reporting and scrutiny (4). For HOS, their ranking was Decreased government funding (1), Growing pressure to generate new funding (2), Balancing work and family life (3), Managing pressures for continuous change (4).
Three ACU groups at this HOS Forum discussed their perceptions of the impact of 23 items. Table 1 ranked Balancing work and family life (1), and suggested a potential solution as allowing HOS to take LSL – for small schools, a senior staff member from another school could be given workload to relieve the HOS. Managing difficult staff was ranked 2, with the practical solution recommended being mediation by an outside body for some disputes, and an independent review of staff dispute processes. Another suggestion was better change management processes for the whole university with staff involved in major decisions much earlier. New ideas were ‘too hard to sell if staff are taken by surprise’. Other suggestions were for a campus-based ‘revenue raiser’ to find opportunities for income generation, and this person would get a percentage of the income if the venture were successful. There needed to be better administration processes and simpler, clearer paperwork for income generating projects.
Table 1 ranked the most important areas of their work as HOS the same as the Scott rankings: Managing other staff (1), Managing relations with senior staff (2), Identifying new opportunities (3), Strategic planning (4). Solutions to Issue 2: keep senior staff in the Faculty informed about the School – take time to visit them, and take advice from senior staff in the School. In relation to Issue 4, Strategic planning, there was a plea for more input into the various strategic plans. ‘Completing plan documents is very time consuming – we need a web-based data collection program.’
In considering the least satisfying aspects of their role, Table 1 staff agreed with the Scott data: ‘Processes, ad hoc requests and meetings that don’t demonstrably improve core outcomes
Lack of rewards/praise for success
Managing complaints, staff performance and budget constraints’.
They managed the problems with prayer, alcohol and talking with other HOS.
In considering the most satisfying aspects of their role, Table 1 staff agreed with the Scott data: ‘Setting direction for the school
Being able to make things happen
Assisting staff and managing resources’.
At Table 2, the rankings for greatest impact were managing pressures for continuous change (1), Balancing work and family life (2), Greater government reporting and scrutiny (3), and ‘Glacially slow and Byzantine admin processes’.
Suggested practical solutions were to (1) clarify positions and responsibilities at upper management levels so that overlapping committees and required responses can be minimised; clear goals and processes for managing various changes, and more involvement in planning.
With regard to Balancing life/work, comments were that Directors/PVCs have little understanding of the pressures on HOS, ADT and ADR. ‘Since universities are now more ‘managed’ and have structures that match business structures, more recognition and reward needs to be given to staff who perform well’.
With regard to Issue 3, Greater government reporting, Table 2 asked for more support from higher level professional staff (e.g. expecting level 7 performance from a level 4 is absurd). Computer systems should talk to each other, should not need multiple entries.
Regarding slow admin processes, the frustrations revolved around ‘starting from scratch with timetables every semester’, ‘revised unit outlines every semester’, and large numbers of students make it difficult to manage systems.
At Table 3, there was agreement that the main issue impacting on HOS was local cultures, with a second issue being how to continue to do your own work as an academic in research when you were HOS. Items of concern were:
- ‘a constipated culture of delegation’ – too many signatures were required in documentation and why do HR require HOS signature for professional development?
- HR should do some of the documentation for appointments etc instead of requiring HOS to do ‘grunt work’; we need practical help
- long standing staff unwilling to embrace change
- there’s a top down culture, not a consultative one
- there’s a ‘disconnect’ between top managers and HOS
- need a redefinition of the roles of ADT, ADR
- need more help with workload and moderation and assessment
- general complaint about ‘atomisation of academic role’ through workload policy
Suggestions to making the role more attractive because it was considered ‘career suicide’
- include admin-intensive criterion in promotions policy
- get rid of more committees, especially the Marketing Committee
- have a 3-year period as HOS
- empower Course Coordinators
My observations here would be that we take the opportunity of new ADTs and ADRs in faculties to introduce a comprehensive training program for the new positions; that the Vice-Chancellor consider at least annual campus-based meetings with local HOS, and bi-annual meetings with the ADTs and ADRs; that HOS be provided with high-level support for administrative purposes; that a program of professional development for HOS be devised and implemented; that a comprehensive analysis be undertaken regarding administrative processes at ACU, to simplify them.
1