E I P

4: National Higher Education Governance and Management Survey [Next Chapter] [Previous Chapter] [Contents]

Decision Making Structures

Characteristics of Management Practice

External Influences on Governance and Management

Staff Supervision

Management of Teaching

Research Management

Higher Education Policy at the National Level

Final Comments by Respondents

One discrete component of the Evaluations and Investigations Program project was a survey of staff opinions and attitudes with respect to management structures and practices. The main purpose of the survey was to determine what are considered to be the main issues and problems regarding university operations in the 1990s. The survey was therefore targeted at those holding key administrative and managerial positions within universities. These positions were categorised into three main groups-Executive Officers (such as Vice-Chancellors, Deputy and Pro Vice-Chancellors, Registrars (or equivalents)), Faculty Deans (or equivalents) and Heads of Departments (or equivalents). The data were collected using a structured questionnaire combining fixed-choice and open-choice questions.

On the basis of information regarding staff listings for the 36 Unified National System institutions, a target population of 2 257 was identified. However, this figure was subsequently reduced to 2 229 as a result of the identification of 28 'inactives' (i.e. those who for reasons such as retirement or absence overseas, were unable to complete the questionnaire). There was only one mail out, which produced 794 useable returns, or a response rate of 35.6 per cent (see Table 1)¹. The response rate is not ideal but it should be noted that the survey was based on what was determined to be the total population rather than a sample. Thus the survey results are considered indicative of particular problems and issues in higher education governance and management in Australia. The results are also considered to provide a basis to guide further inquiries in this area.

Table 1: Population and Return Distribution by Response Category

A number of sources were used for compiling the mailing list including university staff listings and the Commonwealth University Year Book. A constraint in preparing the list was that in a few of the institutions, substantial management restructuring was taking place at the time of the survey and these changes were not always indicated in the information sources used. What this reflects is that universities are continuing to shape and reshape their organisational structure and it is difficult and dangerous to attempt to freeze them in time.

The questionnaire comprised seven main sections and was quite detailed. Background information concerning the respondent was requested in an eighth section and opportunity was also provided for respondents to comment on any other issues considered relevant to the survey. Overall there were 109 questions with some questions divided into several parts. The seven sections covered the following areas:

• decision making structures;
• characteristics of management practice;
• external influences on management;
• staff supervision;
• management of teaching;
• research management; and
• higher education policy at the national level.

In their aggregate form, the results reveal some interesting patterns and there was a remarkable degree of internal consistency in responses by the three respondent groups.

In terms of position, as indicated in Table 1, about 11 per cent of the respondents are executive officers (Vice-Chancellors, Deputy Vice-Chancellors, etc) 17 per cent are Deans of Faculty, 68 per cent are Heads of Department, and 23 respondents did not reply to this item. Overall, there is a good fit between the proportion of respondents in each of the three management positions and the proportions of these positions in the total population.

In terms of disciplinary affiliation of Deans and Heads of Department there was an even split between sciences and social sciences/humanities. Three-quarters of the respondents held their position in a permanent rather than an acting capacity. The average number of years in the position was about four years (with both the mean and mode being three), indicating a relatively experienced group of managers.

In terms of academic rank, about 3/4 of the respondents were associate professors or professors, and another 20 per cent were senior lecturers. Also, about three-quarters of the respondents held tenured positions. Of the respondents, 82 per cent were male, and 85 per cent were 45 years old or older.

Thus, in terms of personal background, the respondents are, as a group, what one would expect: they hold senior academic positions; have a number of years of experience in their management positions, they are tenured, mature in terms of age; and male dominated. At the very least, their rank and experience should be taken into account in interpreting the results of the remainder of the questionnaire. The respondents can be regarded as the academic and managerial leaders of their respective institutions. In terms of background characteristics, the respondents certainly cannot be considered as an alienated or disaffected group of staff.

The results of the survey are analysed according to the seven main sections listed above. The chapter concludes with some final comments from respondents.

Decision Making Structures

Section I contained 15 questions about decision making structures and the devolution of decision making. For specific areas, such as appointment of staff or budget determination, respondents were asked to indicate at what level decisions are primarily made and at what level decisions should primarily be made.

This was the most difficult section of the questionnaire to design and, as it turned out, the most difficult one for the respondents to answer. Decision making structures are complex and it is often difficult to say at what level decisions are actually or primarily made. Decisions get passed back and forth between different officers and committees at different levels, and which person or committee at what level has the most authority is often a matter of judgement or interpretation. Also, as the survey progressed, it became apparent that executive officers and senior management are very sensitive about questions concerning decision making structures. Indeed the most complaints about this section of the questionnaire came from this group. This is probably due to two factors:

1. executive/senior management is inclined to 'over-think' the complexity of decision making for it involves most of their time on a day-to-day basis; and
2. executive/senior management may feel a strong degree of ownership of decision making structures for in most instances they would have been directly involved in their design and implementation.

One Executive Officer provided illustrations on the difficulties experienced in attempting to answer questions about decision making structures:

• Decisions on selection of academic staff (Questions 1 and 2) 'are primarily made' by selection committees and confirmed at different levels depending upon the level of the position. Similarly, decisions on selection of administrative support staff (Question 3) are made at different levels depending on the nature and level of the position. In either case, they are very rarely made by any of the categories listed, although they may be formally approved by these bodies/ groups. Likewise, decisions about budget priorities and allocation of financial resources to teaching activities or research activities are taken at different levels depending upon the scale and nature of the decisions; there cannot be one answer as assumed in the questionnaire. This problem cannot be met by attempting to use the 'Other' category.

• The category 'University Executive/Central Administration' covers such a range of decision-making (including the Vice-Chancellor or the University Council) as to be largely meaningless. Similarly, there is a substantial distinction to be made between a Dean and the Faculty or Faculty Board.

The 'Other' category was used by a number of respondents to indicate the level or location where decisions are made. These comments have subsequently been excluded from the statistical analysis as they generally tended to refer to multiple levels of decision-making (i.e. no primary level) as well as a variety of sources of input to this decision-making. But the comments are nonetheless indicative of the way in which many respondents view the complexity of decision making within universities. For example, some respondents indicated involvement of a number of different levels in the selection of academic staff (other than chairs), with no one level necessarily taking precedence. Other respondents commented that it depends on the level of appointment as to who is involved and on whether the appointment was tenured or non-tenured. Similarly, various combinations of faculty/department/ academic board/council were indicated regarding appointments to chairs.

The most frequent response regarding promotion to senior lecturer referred to university wide promotions/appointments committees. At one university a two-tier promotion system was used whereby a faculty promotions committee chaired by the Dean made recommendations to a University Committee chaired by a Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor. Similarly a wide range (and various combinations) of committees were identified regarding promotion above senior lecturer.

In relation to determination of budget priorities, one respondent explained the complexities entailed in attempting to answer this question:

This university has budget allocated to faculties and support divisions by the VC (or Board of Governors) after taking some 'off the top'. Faculties do the same to schools, again reserving some for support services, and more 'off the top'. Allocation between schools within a faculty is on the basis of [weighted] EFTSU taught. While the system could work well, groups at the bottom perceive that the amounts taken 'off the top' at various levels are excessive. Within the school the budget teaching loads are properly determined by head of school.

A number of respondents commented on the difficulties in being able to answer the question concerning allocation of financial resources to teaching activities (other than staff salaries). The following extract is illustrative of this:

Again it depends on what teaching activities you refer to. If it has a major effect on a Teaching and Learning Strategy this will be funded centrally. If it is a department initiative (e.g. open learning, computer assisted learning), it will be at the department level.

In relation to allocation of financial resources to research activities, some respondents referred to a variety of different levels of involvement in the decision-making with a number indicating a special purpose committee for allocating these funds.

Despite difficulties with the questions, some interesting patterns were, however, evident. Responses are presented in Figures 1 to 15 for four levels of decision making: executive, academic board, faculty and/or department. Results should be read only as illustrative of patterns of decision making and the number of responses excluded for the reasons discussed above should be kept in mind.

For multicampus institutions, the questionnaire distinguished between university executive and campus executive and university academic board and campus academic board. But due to the small numbers of responses concerning campus level decision making (for multicampus institutions) the two categories of 'University Executive/Central Administration' and 'Campus Executive/ Administration (if multicampus)' have been combined. For the same reason, University Academic Board and Campus Academic Board (if multicampus) have been combined. Respondents were asked to indicate at what level are decisions primarily made and at what level decisions should primarily be made with respect to the following 15 items:

1. selection of academic staff (other than chair appointments);
2. appointment to a chair;
3. selection of administrative support staff;
4. promotion up to level of senior lecturer;
5. promotion above senior lecturer;
6. determination of budget priorities;
7. allocation of financial resources to teaching activities (other than staff salaries);
8. allocation of financial resources to research activities;
9. allocation of academic staff salaries;
10. allocation of administrative support staff salaries;
11. determination of teaching load;
12. admission standards for new undergraduate students;
13. admission standards for new postgraduate students;
14. approval for new academic programs; and
15. development of the institution's strategic or corporate plan.

The central purpose of this section of the questionnaire was to obtain an idea of the degree to which decision making was centralised within the institutions, and to gauge respondents' opinions about whether there should be further centralisation or devolution of decision making authority. The results show a very strong indication that: (1) decision making is already highly devolved in many areas; but (2) that there is strong support for shifting decision making even more to the faculty-departmental level than is the case at present (see Figures 1 to 15). Also, there were some interesting differences in opinion amongst the three management categories of respondents - Executive Officers, Deans and Heads of Departments-as to where particular decision should be made.

With respect to the selection of academic staff (other than Chair appointments) it appears that the majority of decisions are already at the faculty/departmental level (Figure 1). But there is also an indication that Heads of Departments more than Executive Officers and Deans wish to see an even greater shift of academic staff selection to the departmental level (see Figure 16).

Figure 16: Level where Decision should Primarily be Made with Respect to the Selection of Academic Staff

Decisions with respect to the appointment to a Chair seem to be made primarily at the executive or academic board levels, with some indication that over one-third of the respondents wish to see the faculty play a greater role in chair appointments (Figure 2). With respect to management position, while three-quarters of Executive Officers and about half of the Deans consider that appointments to a Chair should be made at the Executive level, only one-quarter of Heads of Departments were of a similar view (see Figure 17).

Figure 17: Level where Decision should Primarily be made with Respect to Appointment to a Chair

Selection of administrative support staff already appears to be devolved to faculty/department level (Figure 3). With respect to promotion up to the level of senior lecturer, there appears to be some desire for movement away from the executive level, more to the faculty level and also somewhat surprisingly more devolution from the academic board to faculty level (Figure 4). The role of academic boards is discussed in more detail in the section on 'Characteristics of Management'. But it can be noted here that there are few areas in which academic boards play a prominent role in decision making, and in some of the areas where academic boards are active, the preference by some respondents appears to be to shift decision making from the board to the faculty level.

In relation to promotion above the senior lecturer rank currently about a third of these decisions are made at the executive level and just under half at the academic board level. However, there is an apparent preference for more involvement of the faculty in these decisions at the expense of both the executive and the academic board (Figure 5). There are some differences in opinion amongst the three management categories with respect to where these decisions should be made. About one-half of the Executive Officers seem to wish to retain control of promotion decision above senior lecturer, Deans are about evenly divided as to whether these decisions should be at the executive, academic board or faculty levels, and the large majority of Heads of Departments opt for the academic board or faculty (see Figure 18).

In relation to determination of budget priorities, it appears that the majority of respondents believe that decisions are primarily made at the executive level. But there is some indication that these decisions should be shifted to the faculty or departmental levels (Figure 6), although opinion on this matter is not uniform across the three management categories. The vast majority of Executive Officers wish to retain control over decisions concerning budget priorities, about 50 per cent of Deans indicate that such decisions should be at the faculty level, and the majority of Heads of Departments lean towards faculty or department (see Figure 19).

Figure 18: Level where Decision should Primarily be made with Respect to Promotion above Senior Lecturer

Figure 19: Level where Decision should Primarily be Made with
Respect to Determination of Budget Priorities

With respect to allocation of financial resources to teaching activities (other than staff salaries), decision making is already highly devolved and if there is any desire for movement it is towards greater faculty/department involvement ( Figure7). But there does seem to be some indication that decision making in relation to the allocation of financial resources to research activities should shift to the faculty or departmental levels (Figure 8). Greater devolution in this respect, however, seems to be more due to the opinions of Deans and Heads of Departments than those of Executive Officers (see Figure 20).

Figure 20: Level where Decision should Primarily be Made with Respect to Allocation of Financial Resources to Research Activities

While currently decisions in relation to the allocation of academic staff salaries is split between the executive and the faculty, the preference is for much greater faculty and departmental involvement (Figure 9). A similar set of responses resulted in regard to the allocation of administrative support staff salaries ( Figure10). The determination of teaching load is overwhelmingly devolved to the faculty and particularly the departmental level (Figure 11).

While faculty/department already has a high degree of responsibility for admission standards of new undergraduate students, the indication is that there is some preference to increase this (Figure 12). This is more due to the opinions of Deans and Heads of Departments than those of Executive Officers (Figure 21).

Figure 21: Level where Decision should Primarily be made with Respect to Admission Standards for New Undergraduate Students

In relation to admission standards for new postgraduate students, it appears that respondents believe that the decisions are primarily made at the faculty, academic board or departmental levels, in that order of priority (Figure 13). But in terms of where decisions should be made in this respect, there is a clear split between Executive Officers on the one hand and the Deans and Heads of Departments on the other in relation to the involvement of the academic board. Where just under half of the Executive Officers see that the academic board should be a major influence in this area, less than a fifth of Deans and Heads of Department are of a similar view (see Figure 22).

The academic board appears to be the principal decision-maker regarding approval for new academic programs (Figure 14). However, there is an indication for a preference for a slightly enhanced faculty involvement in these decisions.

There is fairly clear agreement that decisions with respect to the development of strategic or corporate plans takes place at the executive level (Figure 15). But there is an indication by some respondents that the academic board could play a more prominent role. Nonetheless, two-thirds or more of each of the respondent groups-Executive Officers, Deans and Heads of Departments-indicate that the executive level is where such decisions should be made (see Figure 23).

Figure 22: Level where Decision should Primarily be Made with Respect to Admission Standards for New Postgraduate Students

Figure 23: Level where Decision should Primarily be made with Respect to Development of the Institution's Strategic or Corporate Plan

As indicated above, a questionnaire is probably a fairly blunt instrument for canvassing opinions about decision making structures. But the responses obtained are quite helpful in terms of suggesting a picture of the degree of devolution of decision making within universities and in terms of gauging opinion about the satisfaction with the degree of devolution. No firm conclusions can be drawn. However, what evidence there is certainly does not suggest any overwhelming problems with respect to devolution of decision making. There are some differences of opinion amongst the three management categories, and an indication by Deans and Heads of Departments that in certain areas more of the decision making should be even further devolved to faculty or departments. But this is probably more a matter of fine tuning than an indication of a need for significant reform of decision making structures. It should also be noted, as mentioned elsewhere in this report, that several institutions have recently reviewed and changed their internal patterns of decision making.

Characteristics of Management Practice

Section II of the questionnaire was concerned with issues related to management practice, such as leadership, communication, effective policy making and conditions of employment. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement with a number of statements. In the following analysis of results, responses are disaggregated into the three management levels (Executive Officer, Dean and Heads of Departments) only in those instances where there appears to be a substantial difference of opinion amongst the levels.

The responses with respect to leadership at the departmental and faculty levels are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Opinions about the Effectiveness of Leadership at the Departmental and Faculty Levels

Clearly, there appears to be strong support for the leadership being provided by Heads of Departments and Deans. But it should again be emphasised that the bulk of respondents are Heads of Departments and Deans. Nonetheless, there appears not to be a great deal of concern about the leadership being provided at the two primary academic levels: department and faculty.

As mentioned above, a number of institutions have devolved many academic and financial responsibilities to faculties, treating faculties as separate cost centres. This has placed Deans in a pivotal role between central management and academic departments. In many institutions, the deanship has changed from a short-term elected position to an appointed position with a clear job specification to provide strong academic and administrative leadership. The greater definition and expectations of the deanship is in clear contrast to earlier times when the position was perhaps considered a 'good citizen' chore. However, the majority of respondents are of the opinion that Deans are performing what is now clearly a complex and difficult role quite well.

Respondents were also asked to indicate whether or not within their respective institutions 'the Deanship is considered to be more of a management than an academic position?' 78 per cent responded in the affirmative. Followed from this question was one that asked whether or not 'the Deanship should be considered to be more of a management than an academic position?' To this question, 55 per cent of the respondents said yes. While the proportion who agree that the deanship should be more of a management position is smaller than that who see it as such, still well over half the respondents appear to confirm the propriety of the management role being performed by Deans (see Table 3).

Table 3: Academic Versus Management Role of Deanship

The role of head of department is no less onerous than that of Dean (see Moses and Roe 1990) and also has become more complex and difficult in recent years. Heads of Departments need to be financial managers, administrators, and staff supervisors, as well as academic leaders. That the effectiveness of their leadership does not seem to be in question should be regarded as one of the clear management strengths of the Australian higher education system.

Respondents also provided opinion on the effectiveness of leadership at the senior administrator and executive levels (see Table 4).

Table 4: Opinions about the Effectiveness of Leadership at the Senior
Administrator and Executive Levels

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

The clear majority opinion is that executive officers, including Vice-Chancellors, are providing effective leadership. Although Heads of Departments are less adamant about the effectiveness of the leadership being provided at the top of their organisations half of this group is supportive of the executive. Nearly 70 per cent of Deans also agree that executive officers are providing effective leadership. In most instances, Deans must work quite closely with executive officers, which probably puts them in a quite good position to judge the effectiveness of the leadership being provided.

Running the modern university is no less complex and difficult than managing a large corporation. As mentioned earlier, the average size of Australian universities has increased dramatically with the creation of the Unified National System. In 1994 there were 15 universities with 10 000 to 20 000 enrolments and 12 universities with more than 20 000 enrolments (Department of Employment, Education and Training 1995: 20-1). Many universities are on a corporate scale and require an expert cadre of senior managers (Scott 1993: 47). The degree of support for the leadership being provided by executive officers can be regarded as one sign that the corporate complexity of the modern Australian university is being well managed by university leaders.

Where there is some doubt being expressed about the effectiveness of leadership is at the senior administrators level. This finding is primarily the result of the negative attitude of Heads of Departments with respect to the leadership being provided by senior administrators. Over three-quarters of the Executive Officers and over 50 per cent of the Deans agree that senior administrators are providing effective leadership, while only a little over one-third of the Heads of Departments are of the same opinion.

In some respects this result is not at all surprising for traditionally universities have been characterised by a degree of antagonism between academics and administrators. Also, the effectiveness of the leadership being provided by senior administrators is probably less visible to Heads of Departments than to Deans and Executive Officers. Nonetheless, that about 43 per cent of the Heads of Departments disagree that senior administrators are providing effective leadership and another 21 per cent are not sure is clearly a matter of concern.

The questionnaire does not reveal the reasons for a relatively large proportion of Heads of Departments expressing negative opinions about the effectiveness of the leadership of senior administrators. It may simply be a result of the culture of higher education institutions where Academe is suspicious of anything administrative. But the effective day-to-day management of an institution's main administrative branches - finance, building and grounds, student administration, personnel services, etc.- is no less important than effective leadership at the departmental, faculty and executive levels. There is at least anecdotal evidence to suggest that some institutions find it difficult to recruit well qualified and experienced administrators due to more attractive incentives offered by the private sector. Also, the emphasis in recent years placed on strengthening management at the executive and base academic unit levels may have obscured the need to also bolster the more mundane aspects of administration.

The field of higher education administration in Australia has yet to achieve the same professional standing as it has in some other countries, such as the United States. While not ignoring the important activities of such bodies as the Institute of Tertiary Education Administrators, Moodie (1995: 23) argues that:

Academic administration needs a theory which legitimates its exercise of power for the benefit of the institution and its students and staff while not destroying and indeed promoting the scholarly values that make universities unique and valuable. Administration requires judgement in each case, of course (Chubb 1995), but in the medium term these judgements are best made within a general framework of reference. Such a framework cannot be derived from practices developed for different times. A new paradigm is required and the best will be one which is developed by full-time academic administrators and their critics together.

The issue of effective university administration requires much more investigation before any firm conclusions can be drawn. But there may be some direct policy implications for institutions, such as better provision of appropriate staff development programs for administrators, more clearly defined career paths and more proactive recruitment policies to attract the best possible staff to these positions.2 The Higher Education Management Review (1995: 65) commented that 'Development opportunities should be provided systematically to all senior and middle managers ... to ensure that they are appropriately equipped to take on the challenges facing universities'.

The adequacy of communication between different levels within the university was a further issue addressed within the questionnaire. The responses to these questions are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Communications

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

It appears that there is little problem with communication between departments and faculties, but with combined opinion about equally divided about the adequacy of communications between faculties and central administration/ executive. In terms of the three management levels, Executive Officers and only to a slightly lesser extent, Deans, appear satisfied with the adequacy of communications between faculty and central administration. Heads of Departments, however, seem to be much less convinced, with nearly 40 per cent of them disagreeing with the statement that communication between faculties and central administration is good and just over one-quarter not sure. Why Heads of Departments are less satisfied with the adequacy of communication between faculty and central administration is another topic requiring further investigation. But it should be emphasised that the majority opinion at all levels is that staff are kept well informed about major issues. Overall, communication does not appear to be a significant management problem.

Respondents were also asked to provide their opinions on the relationship between academic staff involvement in decision making-the so-called collegial model of academic governance-and managerial control. Responses are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Collegial Governance versus Management Control

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

It appears that there is rather strong opinion amongst Heads of Departments and, to a lesser extent, Deans, that management prerogative takes precedent over collegial authority with respect to decision making. Executive Officers, however, express the opposite point of view. For example, while only one-third of Executive officers believe that the overall management style could be described as 'Top Down' decision making, over 50 per cent of Deans and 70 per cent of Heads of Departments appear to think that this is the case. A similar distribution of responses results from statements concerning the trend towards central management authority and conflict between management goals and the values of academic staff. A majority of Deans and a large majority of Executive Officers agree that academic staff have adequate opportunity to participate in corporate planning, while Heads of Departments are about evenly divided on the issue.

There is little difference in opinion amongst the respondents that it is not the case at their institution that collegial decision making takes precedence over executive management. However, 60 per cent of Heads of Departments and about 41 per cent of Deans agree that this should be the case. Executive Officers hold the opposite point of view.

It seems that Heads of Departments and, to a lesser extent, Deans, are far more concerned than Executive Officers that Australian higher education institutions are becoming more managerial. The idea that university management is based on a dynamic of consensus amongst a community of scholars was probably always a well perpetuated academic myth. Nonetheless, the above results are, at least in part, probably a reflection of the pressure being placed on universities to institute strong managerial modes of operation. A stronger managerial approach is likely to engender some staff resistance. This may be one of the reasons why overall only about 30 per cent of respondents agreed that staff morale within their institutions was high (Table 7). On the other hand, the current climate in which higher education operates requires strong and decisive management. As Moodie (1995: 21) states: 'The relative weakness of academic administration is considered desirable by many faculty, and is not a serious disadvantage in a stable, benign environment. However, in an unstable and threatening environment strong professional academic management may be more effective in preserving academic values than reverting to a fictional ideal of "collegiality"'.

Table 7: Staff Morale

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

But the above observations must be tempered with the survey findings that respondents overwhelmingly disagreed with the statement that management unduly restricts the ability of staff to determine research and teaching directions (see Table 6). These results appear to confirm those of de Boer and Goedegebuure's (1995) survey of management practices in a number of European countries (i.e. institutional management is becoming stronger, more professional and taking primary responsibility for decisions in key areas, particularly those that concern the institutions overall mission, goals and objectives and which affect the relationship between the institution and its external environment). But at the same time, academic autonomy in those areas of immediate academic staff interest - teaching and research - is being respected.

In structural terms, the forum where academic values and interests and the priorities of management often meet head on is in the context of the academic board. Academic boards consist of representatives from departments and faculties and the executive: the Vice-Chancellor, for example, is always an ex officio member of the board (and all other committees for that matter). Boards are provided with authority by most if not all university Acts to advise on the development of academic policy, such as recommending to Council the approval of a new course. The academic board in turn receives its advice and recommendations from departments via faculty boards, with numerous intervening committees along the way. This process of developing academic policy has been criticised as being slow and cumbersome.

Perceptions about the role and nature of the academic board was also a concern within the survey. The responses to these questions are provided in Table 8.

Table 8: Effectiveness of Academic Boards

There appears to be no substantial concern about conflict between academic boards and management over decision making prerogatives. But opinions about the effectiveness or otherwise of academic boards is not unequivocal either way. Depending on how one reads the 'not sure' category, it could be concluded that opinion leans towards doubt about effectiveness, except for the question about lack of authority. That close to 50 per cent of respondents disagree with the statement that academic boards lack authority is not surprising for they are provided with authority in specific areas by university Acts. Also, it should be mentioned that some institutions are in the process of reformulating their academic boards. The University of Sydney, for example, has recently accepted the recommendation of an external review that it reduce the size of its academic board from 400 to 60 members.

Many Australian universities may experience a streamlining of academic boards, resulting in a reduction in size and consisting of more appointed members drawn from the senior ranks of academic staff, replacing the broad democratically elected forums that exist in several places at present. But it should be pointed out that this would not necessarily be a new phenomenon. The present nature of academic boards is, in part, the result of the democratising activities of the mid-1960s, which occurred in Australia and many other countries, where the power of the so-called 'god professor' was curtailed and professorial boards were replaced by boards that contained many more junior staff and students.

A number of general statements about the effectiveness of academic policy making were contained in the questionnaire. The extent of agreement/ disagreement of respondents with these statements are shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Effectiveness of Academic Policy Making

The majority of respondents agree that their institutions have clear and achievable targets. While nearly two-thirds of the respondents agreed that academic decision making processes are slow and cumbersome, over one half also agreed that their institutions had effective procedures for developing policies - though they appear somewhat less convinced about the effectiveness of policy implementation. These results are not necessarily contradictory. For example, research in the United Kingdom which compares policy processes between universities and the private sector concludes that while policy development is more complex in universities because it involves many more people and levels than in the private sector, it is no less effective (Hickson 1986).

In Australia, the question of academic tenure has been hotly debated for some time. The wider social debate centres on the question of why should academics enjoy the guarantee of life-long employment while the employment prospects of much of the rest of society are becoming more and more precarious. At the institutional management level, the argument is that if too many staff hold tenured positions, then it is extremely difficulty to quickly change directions and to pursue innovative strategies. At a more base level, the argument is that tenure prevents culling the 'deadwood'. The Hoare Committee (1995: 82) in recommending 'amendment of industrial awards so as to remove tenure ratios from parent awards' argued both of these latter two points:

It is important that employment policies and practices within universities have the capacity to respond to shifts in student demand or strategic changes in institutional priority, or to the impacts of information technology or changes in the trading environment. It is equally important that institutions have at their disposal useable means for addressing issues of diminished or unsatisfactory staff performance and that these be available regardless of whether the category of engagement of the staff concerned by of a continuing or contract nature.

(Hoare Committee 1995: 73)

Respondents views regarding the issue of tenure are presented in Table 10.

Table 10: Tenure

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

Overall, nearly 50 per cent of the respondents disagree that tenure unduly restricts the institution in setting new directions. But there are substantial differences of opinion according to management level. The majority of Executive Officers agree that tenure constrains the setting of new directions, about the same proportion of Heads of Departments express the opposite opinion and Deans are about evenly divided on the issue. A somewhat similar division of opinion arises over whether the Executive should have more freedom to hire and fire staff. The majority of Deans and Heads of Departments disagree that the Executive should be given more freedom in this respect, while the majority of the Executive hold the opposite point of view. The results reflect the complexity of the debate and probably the divisions one would find in the wider academic community.

In Australia, the body ultimately responsible for university management is the Council. The Council is a lay body whose responsibilities and membership is set down by legislation. Though the exact composition of Councils varies according to institution, generally they consist of the Vice-Chancellor and other senior executives ex officio, elected members of staff and the student body, government appointments, members elected by alumni, and members coopted by council itself. The council elects its own chairperson, called the Chancellor.

All major decisions taken by the institution must be ratified by Council-academic staff appointments, introduction of new degree programs, budget approval, staff terms and conditions of appointment, capital works programs, and so on. But while Council has ultimate responsibility for the institution, traditionally councils have adopted a 'hands-off' approach in terms of day-to-day management activities. And while potentially the position of Chancellor is very powerful, in the past most of the Chancellors official duties were honorific, such as awarding degrees at graduation ceremonies. However, as institutions are becoming more corporate like, entrepreneurial and managerial, councils appear to be becoming more proactive and like boards of governors in the private sector. One indication of change is that while in the past, Chancellors were likely to be retired distinguished academics or judges, they are now being drawn from the ranks of heads of major corporations and industries. Councils seemingly are becoming more active in promoting their institutions in the broader community and in searching out new development opportunities. And as Councils become more active, there are in some places signs of friction between Council and institutional executives.

The opinions of respondents on the role of councils are presented in Table 11.

The combined results in Table 11 must be interpreted with extreme caution because of the relatively large proportion of Heads of Departments who indicate that they are not sure (which probably can be read as 'don't know') of the external roles of their respective councils. It is reasonable to expect that most Heads of Departments are rather far removed from the activities of their respective councils, and thus it is of little surprise that well over 40 per cent of Heads of Departments are not sure how effective their councils are in representing the interests of the institution to external bodies. But these results may also suggest low visibility of the activities of councils.

Deans and Executive Officers in particular are probably in a much better position to make judgements about the effectiveness of their respective councils. And in terms of the results in Table 11, these two categories of respondents seem to express some doubt about how well councils represent the institutions in various external forums. Executive Officers and Deans are about evenly divided in their opinion about the effectiveness of councils in representing the interests of the institution to State government, the private sector and the local community, with a lean towards disagreeing that councils are effective in these respects. In terms of representing the interests of the institution to the federal government, well over 50 per cent of the Executive Officers disagree that councils play an effective role.

Table 11: Effectiveness and Role of Councils

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

Whether councils should be more effective in representing the interests of their institutions to various external bodies is quite another matter. Possibly, there is a perception that councils are primarily responsible for the overall internal management of their respective institutions and that external representation of the institution is best left to the executive and other university staff. On the other hand, various government policy statements have indicated a more prominent role for university councils, and because of the prominent public positions of many councillors, councils may be in an ideal position to act as institutional ambassadors. The Hoare Committee (1995: 43) commented that councils should 'develop and foster links between the university and the community, industry and business ...' In terms of the opinions of the academic managers, there is a good deal of room for improvement of councils' performance in this area. But the issue is complex and requires much more investigation.

What is most striking about the results in Table 11 is the overwhelming opinion that councils should not be more active in the day-to-day management of institutions. This is an interesting result considering the magnitude of the response. It appears that the vast majority of respondents are highly sensitive to demarcations between governing roles of councils and internal management responsibilities of institutions. This result may question the wisdom of the suggestion by some that university governing bodies be more closely modelled on those in the corporate sector (see Chapter 3).

An awareness of the need to involve more women in both senior management and academic positions is apparent in the survey results (see Table 12). Also, the majority of respondents agree that procedures for involving students in formation of policy that directly affects them are adequate, though Executive Officers and Deans appear even more thoroughly convinced of this than Heads of Departments.

Table 12: Participation of Women in Academic and Administrative Positions and of Students in Policy Formation

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

Finally, in terms of management characteristics and processes, respondents were given the opportunity to indicate what they considered to be major impediments to the effective management of their institution. This question provided both a fixed list of options as well as the opportunity for listing other factors. The results are shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Impediments to Effective Management

Of the factors listed, only three attracted the attention of more than one-third of the respondents: lack of finance; academic staff resistance to change; and lack of an effective administrative information system. And of these three, only one - lack of finance - attracted the attention of more than 50 per cent of the respondents. Money, or the lack there of, is a persistent topic of conversation in every higher education institution, and probably not only in Australia. Whether providing institutions with more financial resources would improve the effectiveness of their management is quite a different matter. But it is fairly certain that there will be no significant increase in the public funding of higher education in the foreseeable future. One of the fundamental challenges of institutional management is how to pursue basic teaching and research objectives in a climate of 'steady state' public funding, while at the same time obtaining additional resources for innovation.

The other two items from Table 13 worth mentioning are academic staff resistance to change and lack of an effective information system. With respect to the former, it is somewhat surprising that more respondents did not tick this item. There is much talk about staff attitudes and interests being major barriers to changing and improving management practices. Though about 40 per cent of the respondents indicated this to be the case, about 60 per cent failed to tick this item. The data taken in aggregate form does not indicate an overwhelming problem with respect to academic staff attitudes.

Through government support and institutional cooperation, Australia probably has an advanced computerised educational network comparable to that of any where in the world. Change in this respect has been rapid and highly observable. While ten or fifteen years ago, the use of individual computers, email, word processing, desk top publishing, on-line literature searches and the so-called information super highway would have been rare, it is now so common place to be nearly unnoticed. But where Australia has lagged behind some countries, such as the United States of America, is in the effective implementation of institutional management information systems.

The importance of institutions having effective management information systems has only been recently recognised in Australia, and it has only been within the last 4 to 5 years that many institutions have created planning offices and engaged in transforming fairly archaic record keeping systems into professional management information systems. Thus, it is not surprising the over 40 per cent of the respondents indicated this area as an impediment to effective management, a result that gives some support to one of the recommendations of the Hoare Committee (1995: 91): 'management information systems should be transparent, timely, user friendly, linked to reporting requirements and integrated. Systems should be designed to meet the needs of the institution', and, as the Committee indicates, 'kept under regular review'.

Other impediments identified by respondents concerning effective institutional management include:

• intrusion of government policies and administrative overload through DEETYA reporting requirements;

• lack of leadership from the Vice-Chancellor;

• difficulties in being able to remove poorly performing staff;

• too many committees and associated administrative paperwork; and

• under-financing.

The following comment is illustrative of the concern by some regarding the perception that the government/DEETYA is too interventionist regarding university operations:

The inability or willingness of Government to trust Universities and leave them to get on with the job. This is particularly critical to the success of Universities when Government and public servants do not understand, appreciate, or value the processes by which Universities function.

(Executive Officer)

On the other hand there was also a view expressed that academic staff were somewhat unrealistic regarding the impact of financial realities on the operations of universities.

Staff's lack of recognition of changes in the outside world-they don't realise how well off they are relative to those working in the public sector at State level. Still living in a cocoon...

(Head of Department, Health Sciences)

The following comments are of interest regarding devolution/central administration as well as other issues perceived to be impediments to effective institutional management.

Devolution and centralisation are not alternatives, except for individual function. Our university has not yet solved the problem of identifying more functions that are best centralised (database finances; fast, accurate student enrolments, graduations, personnel data) and those that are best devolved decisions where there is a need for local profound judgment of both administrative and academic kinds. We need a slick, well-oiled, central machine for all the routine stuff-only by centralisation will the University be able to afford the required software, hardware and systems.

(Dean, Social Sciences and Humanities)

The University is in the process of devolving responsibility to schools. In their interpretation, this involves devolving work but not power. The schools are given funds to run on, but in most cases, this is inadequate. An example of a major problem is that the Academic Board makes promotions. This punishes successful Schools. The devolvement process should result in most of the University administrative processes passing down to Schools, but this has not occurred. There is still a very large central administration, and the small numbers of administrative staff in Schools just get overloaded.

(Head of Department, Sciences)

We have had more reviews in the past 5 years than I have had hot dinners.

(Head of Department, Social Sciences and Humanities)

Academic units are expected to be entrepreneurial, responsible, and performance oriented, BUT the administration is too large, too focused on bureaucratic style of management to allow this to happen.

(Head of Department, Sciences)

Effective management depends on the commitment of individual members of staff. For staff with a high level of commitment there are few barriers to effective management.

(Head of Department, Social Sciences and Humanities)

There is a lack of understanding at the DEET level and also at the senior Executive level as to what it is like at the teaching and research coal face.

(Head of Department, Sciences)

Too many staff (academic and general) who have been entrenched in their positions for too long: insufficient new blood. Inadequate consciousness of changing and increasingly competitive environment.

(Executive Officer)

There are no career rewards nor time allocation for Heads of Departments to participate in management. Promotion is still on rigid academic criteria and Head of Department's chances of promotion diminish if they devote time to management.

(Head of Department, Sciences)

The university is grossly overloaded with surveys, forms, questionnaires, audits, workshops and other such phenomena - few of which seem to produce any worthwhile results and all of which require inordinate amounts of time and effort. (Furthermore, they are a great waste of paper). Most of us feel a streamlining of these procedures is vital. Why, for instance, cannot the university have a centralised on-line database for research activities and publications; in this case, someone could extract the appropriate information rather than continually requiring academics to complete varying enquires.

(Head of Department - no discipline specified)

Incredibly overwhelming demand for information and procedures from DEET is far and away the biggest impediment.

(Head of Department, Business Studies)

Lack of any accountability for failures of central administration, union intransigence.

(Head of Department, Science)

External Influences on Governance and Management

Much of the management of a higher education institution focuses on the interaction between the institution and the external environment. As indicated in previous chapters, the external environment in which Australian higher education presently operates is unstable and, in many respects, threatening. The nature of the external environment necessitates strong and decisive internal management both due to the threats and the opportunities which the external environment presents. At the same time, the external environment places pressure on internal management. The survey attempted to elicit opinion about the impact of external influences on internal management processes. Table 14 presents the results with respect to the external influences which seem to add most to the internal administrative burden.

In Australia and elsewhere, government has placed a great deal of pressure on higher education institutions to ensure their accountability to government and society. Thus, it is no surprise that the influence of government initiatives - such as demands for information and quality assurance reviews - in adding to administrative burden is ranked very high indeed (see Table 14). One might have expected that a higher proportion of respondents would have indicated that the performance expectations of industry/employers significantly influenced administrative burden than what is the case. Possibly, respondents see meeting the performance expectations of industry/employers not as an administrative burden, but as a basic objective of the institution.

As discussed in Chapter 3, the main academic union in Australia (the National Tertiary Education Union) is recognised by the Industrial Relations Commission as having the legal right to negotiate academic wages, terms and conditions of employment for all academic staff. The Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (a national body consisting of Vice-Chancellors) and the union are often adversaries. Also, individual institutions can find themselves in the industrial relations court over local union initiated disputes. But most of this activity takes place between the union and top level management and as one might expect, Executive Officers more than Deans and Heads of Departments appear to view union advocacy as an influential administrative burden, while both Executive Officers and Deans see industrial legislation as an influential administrative burden.

While 50 per cent of Executive Officers regard union advocacy as an influential administrative burden, it is some what surprising that even a higher proportion did not express this opinion. There have been protracted disputes between the union and senior management at a number of institutions, and at the national level, disputes over such items as tenure have received a good deal of press coverage. Possibly, this result reflects the situation, as discussed in Chapter 3, where many negotiations between the union and senior management involve a very small number of people. Or it could mean that in general, union advocacy is seen as less of an administrative burden relative to what are regraded as more important items, such as DEETYA demands for information and Quality Assurance. Also, Executive Officers appear to be inclined to tie management issues to specific circumstances and policies. Thus, when asked about the influence of unions on academic staffing policy (see Table 18 below), two-thirds of this group responded in the positive.

While Executive Officers are usually the ones embroiled in industrial relations issues, teaching is more directly the responsibility of Deans and particularly Heads of Departments. Thus it is no surprise that nearly 60 per cent of Heads of Departments and more than 50 per cent of Deans regard growth in student numbers as adding to the administrative burden of their institutions.

Table 14: External Influences on Internal Administrative Burden

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

The questionnaire elicited opinions about the influence of a number of external bodies on internal policy formation in a number of areas: teaching, research, finance and academic staffing. The results with respect to teaching are presented in Table 15.

Only one external body was rated as having influence on the framing of teaching policy by more than 50 per cent of the respondents, ie professional bodies. But the degree of influence of professional bodies on teaching is neither surprising nor new. Professional associations, through their power of recognition and accreditation, have long had influence over the higher education curriculum in such areas as accountancy, engineering, and medicine. The only other bodies that seem to have much influence at all are: the federal government, the private sector, research funding agencies, and other universities.

Table 15: External Influences on Teaching Policy

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

Government only has influence over internal teaching policies through its power of the purse-institutions, not government, accredit courses. There has been much rhetoric in Australia that universities should take more account of the employment needs of the private sector in framing educational policies and it appears that a bit over a third of the respondents see the private sector as influential. About the same proportion also see other universities as influential, probably because institutions are in competition with one another for students. It appears that graduates have virtually no influence over the framing of teaching policies. Yet, it could be argued, graduates are a rich source of information about both the content and quality of teaching programs - a source of information, or at least influence, that Australian universities are not taking advantage of. But overall, the picture that emerges is an expected one - no overwhelming external influence on teaching policies except for that of professional associations. Quite a different picture emerges, however, when we turn our attention to research policy (see Table 16).

Table 16: External Influences on Research Policies

According to the respondents, government, the private sector, research funding agencies and, to a much lesser extent, other universities have influence over internal research policies. These results are not at all surprising since government has given research much prominence and adopted a range of policies on research. Government has adopted a policy of concentration and selectivity in the area of research, created various mission oriented research schemes to promote joint ventures between university and industry, and requires each university to have a research management plan. The research quantum is differentially funded on the basis of research performance.

Research funding agencies, of course, have a direct influence on investigator initiated research, and the influence of other universities probably comes in the form of competition. There is fierce competition in Australia for research funding and institutions are to some extent ranked according to the amount of external research money they attract. All this has resulted in a great deal of activity with respect to research within most if not all universities.

Obviously, the federal government has a great deal of influence on institutions' financial policies (see Table 17). Certainly in recent years universities have diversified their funding base with some of the larger and more powerful institutions receiving around one-half of their funding from non-DEETYA sources. But the federal government remains the singly most influential external body with respect to internal financial policies, followed closely by research funding agencies. Somewhat surprisingly, a little over 47 per cent of the respondents regard State government as influential in framing their institutions' financial policies. This is one of the few areas where respondents regard State government as having any important role in the management of their institutions. Also somewhat surprisingly, less than one-third of the respondents seem to believe that the private sector has much influence in framing their institutions' financial policies. Given the pressure on institutions to diversify their funding base and to find a larger proportion of their operating grants from non-government sources, one could reasonably expect that the private sector would be seen as very influential in terms of the framing of internal financial policies. But this does not seem to be the case.

Table 17: External Influences on Financial Policy

The only bodies that seem to have much influence with respect to the framing of academic staffing policies are the federal government and staff unions (see Table 18). Probably for the same reasons as outlined above, Executive Officers much more than Deans and Heads of Departments regard staff unions as influential with respect to staffing policies.

Table 18: External Influences on Academic Staffing Policy

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

Staff Supervision

Specification of staff roles, functions and duties and staff supervision to ensure compliance with these has been an important aspect of industrial relations within Australian universities at least since the 1988 Second Tier Wage Agreement. Indeed,