Transformation Manager’s Report to the

Vice Chancellor

Response of the University Community to the Institutional Climate Survey

30 June 2004

Addendum

Due to a communication problem the Report of SDSD and Housing was only received by the Transformation Office on 2 July 2004. The Reports were submitted on the due date to the Transformation email address but somehow disappeared with the email problem. The reports have not been included in this analysis but have been included as an appendix.

Introduction

This report provides an analysis of feed-back solicited from the university community on the results of the Institutional Climate Survey. It has three objectives. The first is to provide insight into the processes embarked upon in the discussion of the findings of the climate survey. The second draws out the common themes that have emerged in the responses received and the third lists interventions recommended for improving the institutional climate of the University of Cape Town.

The report will be sent to the Vice Chancellor and thereafter to the Transformation Management Advisory Group (TMag) with the aim of developing a climate intervention strategy and action plan.

The report is divided into three sections. Section 1 provides background information to the report. It briefly explains the history of the Institutional Climate Survey and the process embarked upon by the Vice Chancellor and Senior Leadership Group in reporting on the findings of the institutional climate survey and in attaining feed-back and recommendations for a climate intervention strategy. Section 2 provides an overview of all the submissions by drawing out the common concerns and recommendations. It does this thematically. Section three looks specifically at the reports submitted to the Transformation Office by Faculties and PASS Departments and provides an analysis of the content of these submissions, according to 1) the process utilised in disseminating the findings of the Institutional Climate Survey; 2) the methods utilised in soliciting feed-back on intervention mechanisms and 3) concerns raised in the submissions and 4) follow-up measures that may have emerged from the first round of discussions.

Section 1: Background

The aim of the University of Cape Town (UCT), as captured in the Vice Chancellor’s transformation objectives is to develop an institutional culture based on respect for human dignity and which has a visible and meaningful respect for diversity. The Vice Chancellor and his senior leadership group note that it is important to change the image of UCT as an elitist, white institution and to shift from closed, exclusionary systems, processes and procedures to open and transparent participation (SLG Transformation Workshop, Jan. 2003).

The institutional climate survey forms a critical part of the University of Cape Town’s Action Guide on Transformation. It, alongside the implementation of the Employment Equity Policy, is one of the priorities listed for change at the university. The Climate Survey is seen to be a significant factor in furthering employment equity at UCT as the exit interviews of black staff members point to the institutional climate as being the most significant factor contributing to the decisions byblack staff to leave the institution.

In addition to these factors, the research on institutional climate was based on concerns raised by staff at faculty forums with the Vice Chancellor from April through to July 2003. Faculty members noted that the institutional culture at the University of Cape Town was alienating. They also stated that while the climate situation at UCT impacted on the retention of black staff, the climate was more than a race matter and staff of all racial groups, male and female, found many aspects of the climate to be disturbing.

In this context, it was important for the university to understand precisely how institutional culture was being perceived and experienced and to gather how far it was were from achieving the objectives of the university’s transformation framework. It was emphasised at senior management level that if research was to be conducted by the university on the climate that it be used as baseline data in an ongoing monitoring exercise. It was also felt that the results of the research should be used in a manner which allowed staff at the University to identify, in a bottom-up manner, any further concerns and possible solutions to the climate problems raised or not raised in the survey. The intention of the Senior Leadership Group was to use the results of the Climate Survey as a generative tool for ongoing debate and discussion.

A survey was commissioned by Deputy Vice Chancellor, Prof. de la Rey to Prof. Johann Louw and Gillian Finchilescu of the Department of Psychology. The researchers were given total independence in the research process. The UCT Organisational Climate survey was conducted during October and November 2003. The researchers sent out 3649 questionnaires to the entire staff database provided by SAPR3. They received 1160 completed questionnaires of which they were able to use 1152. The demographics of this sample reflected the UCT population reasonably well.

In defining climate, the researchers note: “We took the “climate” of an organisation to refer to ‘those aspects of the environment that are consciously perceived by organisational members” (Armstrong, 2003, p.205).’ Put slightly differently, it refers to how the members of an organisation perceive the organisation as it goes about its daily business.” ( Louw, J. and Finchelescu, G., 2003, p1)

The dimensions of the climate surveyed through the mailed questionnaire that went out to the University community were:

  • Fairness
  • Collegiality
  • Rewards and recognition
  • Participation
  • Trust
  • Strategic clarity
/
  • Organisational environment
  • Communication
  • Systems, equipment and training
  • Workforce diversity and inclusion
  • Commitment

In addition, respondents were asked to:

  • Rate the seriousness of a number of potential problem areas
  • Indicate whether they had experienced, witnessed or had reported to them personally events of harassment and discrimination
  • Rate student experiences at UCT
  • Identify the best and worst aspects of working at UCT

The results of the survey were made available to the Senior Leadership Group for discussion in April 2004. The results were accepted and it was agreed that a communication plan be developed for dissemination and feed-back. The communication plan had three dissemination routes: line communication via Deans and Executive Directors, statutory governance structures at institutional level and employee unions and associations. The third route was to be via the Department of Communication and Development, the survey results were to be publicised through internal and external communication channels such as the Monday Paper, electronic news etc. An information package compiled by the Department of Communication and Development for members of the Senior Leadership Group included:

  • A letter from the VC that could be read out and distributed
  • The summary of the findings
  • Slides to use for the presentation
  • A feedback email address () based in Communications and Development was developed for electronic feed-back.

All the documentation was sent in hard copy and on disk. The documentation went out on 19 April 2004 and feed-back based on discussions within the institution was scheduled to be given to the Transformation Office by 15 June 2004. All Deans and Executive Directors were asked to comply with this request. Prof. de la Rey, Deputy Vice Chancellor for Transformation, on the request of the Vice Chancellor monitored the dissemination process and sent out reminders for progress reports.

Section 2: Analysis

2.1. List of responses received by 17 June 2004

Reports of Deans of Faculties

Centre for Higher Education Development

Commerce

Engineering and the Built Environment

GraduateSchool of Business

Health Sciences

Humanities

Law

Science

Reports of Executive Directors

Human Resources Department

Reports of Heads of Department

Postgraduate Centre and Funding Office

Department of Research and Innovation

Institutional Planning Department

Office of the Registrar

Organisational Responses

University Employees Union

Bigfoot anonymous email

Black Caucus anonymous email

Reponses of Individuals

Six responses were sent to the transformation email address.

Reports submitted by 22 June 2004

Office of the Vice Chancellor

International Office and Programme Administration

Outstanding Reports from the Senior Leadership Group

  1. Department of Communication and Development
  2. Finance
  3. ICTS
  4. Libraries and Services
  5. Property and Services
  6. Student and Development Services Department
Apologies Received

Property and Services

Student and Development Services Department

2.2. Methodology utilised in the analysis

Reports submitted were clustered into four groups:

  1. Faculties
  2. Pass Departments
  3. Organised Formations (covering staff across faculties and PASS Departments)
  4. Individual staff members

Reports were read through several times for an overview of the submissions. The analysis focused on process of dissemination, percentage of staff who participated in feed-back sessions, methods utilised in soliciting feed-back, concerns raised in feed-back sessions, follow-up mechanisms and recommendations for an intervention strategy. As this is the first endeavour of this sort at the university, a summary of the submissions according to these criteria has been drawn up. This approach paints a picture of developments in all faculties and also some of the Departments who made submissions. The organisational submissions were summarised according to issues raised. Individual submissions have also been summarised according to key areas of concern. Due to time constraints, summaries of the individual and organisational submissions have not been included in the report. The reports have however been used in the analysis.

Concerns raised in the submissions have been grouped under theme headings. Recommendations are also listed under these headings.

This report provides a very basic analysis of the rough data. No reference is made to literature on climate related matters in higher education contexts. The analysis speaks specifically to the reports submitted.

2.3. Analysis

2.3.1. A General Overview

As noted above, the responses submitted by the university community have been clustered into four groups: Faculties, PASS Departments, organised constituencies and individual responses. Work-in-progress reports on the institutional climate discussions that took place at faculty level were submitted by the Deans of all seven faculties and the Executive Director of the Graduate School of Business. In the case of PASS Departments, only one of the Executive Directors, the Human Resources Executive Director, provided a work-in progress report and the report indicates that only dissemination of the findings of the Survey had taken place and that plans were still afoot to workshop the results in his Department. From individual submissions made to the Transformation Office, there is evidence to suggest that other PASS Departments have initiated discussions on the findings of the Climate Survey. In cases where no apologies were forthcoming, the silence in the reporting process or non-reporting by key PASS departments needs to be clarified.

The submissions of organised constituencies speak to the particular issues that gave rise to these formations. The submission of the University Employees’Union speaks to concerns around staffing particularly in relation to PASS Staff, the Black Caucus submissions all speak to transformation, the perceptions of black staff and personal experiences of racism. The Big Foot submission raises concerns with staff victimisation by management, access to senior management and methodological concerns the group holds in relation to survey. Unlike the other formations, the Big Foot group was convened for the purpose of writing a response to the Climate Survey report.

Individual submissions made to the transformation email address reflect points made in all other submissions. Only six responses were received at this address and from the comments made by staff it appears as if the address was not utilised to its optimum because it did not guarantee confidentiality. In cases where anonymity was guaranteed, or a safety zone was created, more responses to the Survey came through. The Faculty of Humanities anonymous email address appears to be an exception to this particular scenario.

In terms of process followed in the discussions on the findings of the survey, the submissions point to more intense and comprehensive discussions in the smaller Departments. Some of the submissions indicate that where safe spaces were created for responses that the discussions were more free and representative.

Clearly what has been submitted thus far is quite superficial, the Faculties and PASS Departments have only just opened up discussions on climate.

There are lessons that have emerged from the reports:

The package sent to SLG members needed to be used innovatively and not technically. This essentially means that where the tables and bar charts were not being understood that an alternative and less academic methodology should have been used for promoting discussion. Reports of silence, tension and unhappiness in reporting sessions imply that more thought needs to go into how discussion is managed. Issues of inclusiveness, safety, hearing the silences all need to be addressed. In addition the delivery of the findings of the Climate survey by leaders who are perceived by some staff members as having contributed to the present climate is an added problem.

The silences in the submissions and in the actual discussions also need to be explored. Making safe spaces for discussion does not only apply to designated groups or those who were marginalised in the previous political dispensation.

The current set of submissions voice two key areas of concern, the conditions of employment of PASS staff and the discrimination encountered by black staff in employment practices. Racial identity is seen as a further disadvantage by black staff and is considered the most influential factor impacting on placement, promotion, succession and recognition. Black staff members in their submissions highlight relationship problems at the university, systems issues and most importantly the racial homogeneity in middle and higher level management positions, the key decision making positions in the university. The submissions of black members reflect quite strongly that reflection on power has not yet entered into the transformation discourse of the university at senior management level and the Climate Survey does not reflect this in the questions asked. The approach to transformation, while recognised to be linked with climate therefore appears to be superficial at a number of levels.

The silence of white staff on the employment equity policy and on student access, issues, redress, diversity and affirmative action is deafening in the reports submitted and it is critical that these areas are explored as there are clearly issues regarding fairness, equity and vulnerabilities that have to be dealt with. Only one submission alerts the university to these concernsand notes the worries of a white staff member about her own development in the light of an Employment Equity Plan. She writes:

“Frequently when applying for a position at a higher grade (or occasionally even at the same grade but which promises to be more interesting) I have been told that I am wasting my time – that the position has to go to a person of colour, presumably to fit in with employment equity plans. It is extremely disheartening and discouraging, even though understandable to some extent. But if that is not racial discrimination what is?”

Even though these fears and vulnerabilities are not being voiced formally, it is important to reiterate that these are real concerns within the university and certainly impacts on climate. The fear of losing out on promotion or access to a new position or giving up on power has manifested itself in the university in a subliminal manner. The result of the university not confronting these fears, in a constructive, humane and sensitive manner, will further entrench the apartheid created schism between white and black staff and students. Strategies for nation building, reconciliation and understanding the legacy of the past and the predicament of the present is critical for paving a path to a UCT that is freed of apartheid baggage and which reflects the values and ethos of a democracy that adheres to the doctrine of human rights espoused in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The submissions provide a rich set of data on climate concerns and where there are intersections these have been listed as crosscutting themes. The cross-cutting themes reflected below provide a more detailed look at some of the issues mentioned in the overview.

2.3.2. Cross-Cutting Themes

(i). Process for Discussing Findings

The process for discussing the findings of the survey came under scrutiny on a number of occasions. Many of the submissions note the difficult in engaging staff members through use of the presentation pack only. It appears as if the more successful discussions were ones in which there had been joint planning exercises, workshop formats and not merely a presentation by the Director, Executive Director or Dean.