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, staff supervision and compliance with formally stated duty statements has, if anything, increased in significance. This is evident in the recent rounds of enterprise bargaining which have been transacted not only between the National Tertiary Education Union and the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association but also between institution based staff associations and the respective institutional managers. Thus, it is not surprising to see that the roles, functions and duties of all categories of staff appear to be well specified and documented (Table 19). This even seems to be the case for academic staff whose role, functions and duties are only slightly less well specified and documented than administrative support staff.

Table 19: Specification and Documentation of the Roles, Functions and Duties of Staff

There does not appear to be any substantial disagreement between the three management levels as to the degree to which the roles, functions and duties of various categories of staff are specified and documented. But with respect to the degree to which categories of staff are supervised to ensure compliance with job specifications, some interesting differences of opinion arise (see Table 20). Executive Officers indicate that they and senior administrators are more closely supervised than what Deans and Heads of Departments seem to believe to be the case. Executive Officers and Deans appear much more certain than Heads of Departments that middle level administrators are closely supervised. There is combined agreement that administrative support staff are well supervised. But with respect to the completeness of the supervision of academic staff, Heads of Departments and Deans seem much more convinced than Executive Officers that academic staff are well supervised. These differences of opinion are probably simply a reflection of the degree to which the respondents belonging to the different management levels have direct knowledge and experience of the supervision of various categories of staff. For example, one-third or more of Heads of Departments indicate that they are not sure of how closely executive officers, senior administrators and middle level administrators are supervised. If the results in Table 20 are assessed in terms of the institutional structural location of the respondents, then a fairly positive picture emerges as to the completeness of staff supervision to ensure compliance with job specifications.

Table 20: Staff Supervision

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

Also, similar divisions of opinion as those above emerge with respect to the question of how closely is the performance of various categories of staff assessed (Table 21). Executive officers, for example, seem to be far more convinced than Heads of Departments that their performance is completely/mostly assessed. But some 40 per cent of Heads of Departments indicated that they were not sure of the degree to which the performance of Executive Officers is assessed. Executive Officers are probably far more acutely aware than Heads of Departments of the role of council in assessing their performance. On the other hand, Deans and Heads of Departments seem more sure than Executive Officers that the performance of academic staff is comprehensively assessed. Once again, if the results in Table 21 are related to the structural positions of the respondents, it can at least be suggested that there appears to be a fairly high degree of assessment of the performance of all categories of staff.

Keeping in mind that the bulk of respondents are academic Heads of Department, one of the most interesting results of this survey is the degree to which respondents indicated that staff performance should be assessed (Table 22). There is near total agreement amongst respondents from all three management levels that all categories of staff, including academic staff, should be completely/mostly assessed. The results suggest a substantial value shift within Australian universities. Had the same question been asked even ten years ago, probably quite a different response would have been obtained. At the national policy level there is emerging a culture of institutional evaluation, accountability and performance assessment, which often attracts criticism from institutions. But within the institutions themselves, there appears to be strong acceptance of the need for performance assessment of all categories of staff. Public rhetoric and at times, political statements, have it that universities and academics are little concerned with assessing staff performance, preferring to be left alone to do their own thing. Even the recent Higher Education Management Review (1995: 73) commented that 'there has been no widespread interest in the issue of performance management'. The results of this survey strongly question the validity of such assumptions.

Table 21: Degree to which Staff Performance is Assessed

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

Table 22: Degree to which Staff Performance should be Assessed

Management of Teaching

The effective management of teaching is one of the fundamental goals of all universities. A number of items within the questionnaire were therefore devoted to different aspects of the teaching function. The results are reported in Table 23.

Table 23: Degree of Activity in Support of Teaching

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

It is certainly clear from the survey responses that teaching is not only considered a central activity within universities but much effort appears to be directed to its support. For example, an overwhelming proportion of all respondents indicate that their institutions have been active with respect to reforming both the undergraduate and postgraduate curriculum. Also, there appears to be little problem with institutions being active with respect to:

1. ensuring that the Library provides high-calibre teaching collections;
2. investigating the possibilities of new forms of teaching based upon computer, audio visual and other new technologies;
3. adopting new forms of teaching based upon computer, audio visual and other new technologies; and
4. providing staff development programs regarding technological innovation in teaching.

Of course, the responses indicate nothing about the effectiveness of teaching.

It does appear that institutions are experiencing some difficulties with respect to providing adequate support staff and facilities in dealing with increased student load. Deans and in particular Heads of Departments indicate that their institutions have not been active in ensuring adequate provision of teaching support staff and in maintaining appropriate staff/student ratios. Also, it would appear that the majority of Executive Officers would concur with this opinion. There are some substantial differences in opinion amongst the three management levels in regard to how active their respective institutions have been in providing adequate lecture and laboratory facilities and in providing adequate teaching space. But overall, the adequate provision of lecture facilities and teaching space seems to be less of a problem than some of the other items. The majority of all respondents do not rate their institution as active in providing adequate number of tutorials.

All of the items mentioned in the above paragraph have financial implications. One could reasonably expect that all institutions would wish to be highly active in all of the areas mentioned. But the provision of teaching support staff and facilities will always be influenced by the availability of financial resources. Not surprisingly, those who are closest to the teaching coalface (Heads of Departments) were the most critical of the adequacy of support for teaching. Indeed, except for the provision of adequate lecture facilities and teaching space, Heads of Departments seem to be fairly pessimistic about the degree to which their institutions can satisfactorily support teaching.

The Hoare Committee devoted an entire chapter to finance and asset management (1995: 83-92) and indicated a need for much improvement in these areas. According to the report, 'The Committee heard anecdotes about the failure of some universities to set aside sufficient funds for annual maintenance only to be faced with a much larger financial liability after a period (1995: 88). In framing its recommendations, the Hoare Committee made reference to efficient use of assets through the employment of space utilisation systems and more effective sharing of resources amongst universities, and commented (1995: 91). that:

investment in university infrastructure must be protected with a strong commitment to maintenance, earmarked in the university budget. Assets management plans and effective asset management systems are essential. Plans should be integrated with strategic planning processes ...

There can be little doubt that universities must employ modern business practices and strategies. But as indicated in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, there is only so much that can be accomplished with respect to the support of teaching through improvements in financial management per sé. Nearly everywhere, the cost of growth in higher education has exceeded the ability of governments to pay for it, resulting in increasing pressure on institutions to diversify their funding base. But there is growing evidence to suggest that while institutions have been somewhat successful in finding a greater proportion of their operating grant from sources other than the public purse, teaching in particular continues to suffer. This appears to be not merely a result of poor financial management practices, but a product of a number of complex factors associated with how institutions interact with what is now a more competitive market environment. The results reported here and those of other studies (such as Goedegebuure, Kaiser and van Vught 1994; Shattock 1996) suggest the need for more research on the educational costs of market competition. As suggested in Chapter 3, such studies should take into account not only the gross amount of non-government funding institutions attract, but also the overheads incurred through raising such revenue and how it is distributed to primary functions within the institutions.

It is often argued that the application of computers and other new technologies to teaching can result in significant financial efficiencies. There are many other benefits argued for the use of new technologies in teaching beside economic ones. But it is fairly well recognised that the traditional lecture/tutorial form of delivery is highly expensive both in terms of the number of staff required and the provision of teaching space. Greater use of new technologies in teaching may be one way to better cope with the financial pressures being placed on universities by the expansion of student numbers.

As mentioned above, respondents to this survey indicate that their institutions are active in investigating and adopting new forms of teaching based on new technologies (Table 23). There were also a number of more specific questions about the application of new technologies to teaching, the responses to which are presented in Table 24.

Executive Officers appear convinced that traditional forms of teaching are increasingly being replaced by new technological modes of delivery, and even more convinced that this should be the case. However, only a little over one-third of the Deans and Heads of Departments agree that this is what is actually occurring, though only about one-quarter of Deans disagree that traditions forms of teaching should increasingly be replaced by new technological modes of delivery. Heads of Departments appear more reserved in their apparent enthusiasm for replacing traditional forms of teaching by new technologies. But over 60 per cent of all respondents agree that all undergraduate students should be required to own/have access to a personal computer capable of access by modem to a university network. Also, about the same proportion agreed that the Library will increasingly play a central role in the electronic provision of lectures and related material. The realities of the so-called information super highway do not seem to be lost on the respondents.

In their open-ended comments on the questionnaire, a few respondents raised equity questions with respect to the utilisation of new technology in teaching and learning. This is an important issue, for clearly some students would be in a much more advantageous position than others to purchase or have access to computers, modems, etc. Nonetheless, it does not appear that adoption of new technologies in teaching is significantly hindered by either the negative attitudes of staff or students, nor by inadequate university policies. The two main limiting factors seem to be money and lack of expertise amongst designated support staff, which is probably related to money.

Overall the respondents to this survey indicate a supportive attitude to the application of new technologies to teaching and learning.

Table 24: Teaching Methods and New Information Technologies

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

Research Management

There is a variety of government policies concerning research. All universities, for example, are required to have a research management plan and competition for research dollars is quite keen. It certainly seems, at least in terms of the results reported in Table 25, that the research policy environment has stimulated much activity at the institutional level.

These results could be regarded as a clear example of how government policies, such as the competitive allocation of 6 per cent of operating grants through the research quantum, have direct influence at the institutional level. However, the influence would probably not be as great as what it appears to be if the institutions themselves, and more particularly, academic staff, did not also embrace the importance of research and use it as an indicator of academic worth. Some commentators have argued that if too much emphasis is placed on research and competition for the rewards it attracts, teaching may suffer. But it does not appear, at least according to the results on teaching management discussed above, that enhanced research activity diminishes interest in teaching.

There is little difference in opinion amongst respondents that their institutions are active in:

• setting internal research priorities;
• the systematic evaluation of the research performance of academic departments;
• establishing institution-wide research performance indicators;
• recruitment of research masters and PhD students;
• encouraging academic staff to apply for external research funding; and
• establishing international research linkages.

Deans and Heads of Departments appear to believe more so than Executive Officers that their institutions are active with respect to the systematic evaluation of individual staff research performance. Deans and Heads of Departments are probably in a better position to know whether or not this is the case. On the other hand, a substantially higher proportion of Executive Officers compared to Deans and particularly Heads of Departments seem to believe that their institutions are active in assisting academic staff to increase their research skills. But the differences are insignificant in that 50 per cent or more of all categories of respondents indicate that this is the case. A similar result applies to both provision of a strong research infrastructure and ensuring the Library provides high calibre research collections.

Table 25: Activities Associated with the Management of Research

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

The least active area occurs with respect to the commercialisation of research results. While nearly 40 per cent of the respondents indicate that their institutions are active in this respect, about another 60 per cent are not sure or indicate little or no activity. This result is probably influenced by a number of factors, such as institutional age and size, disciplinary mix and the presence of one or more Cooperative Research Centres. But given the importance of the commercialisation of research results, this is an area requiring further investigation.

If the results in the above table are compared with those in Table 16, it becomes even more apparent that research is an area where there is a strong relationship between the external policy environment and institutional response. But as argued in Chapter 3, the relationship between policy and response can have its unintended consequences. The emphasis which the external environment, including government policy, places on research may drive institutions towards uniformity, undermining the principles of diversity (see Chapter 3). The results of the survey only illustrate the importance which nearly all institutions attribute to maintaining and enhancing a strong research profile, which may in itself sit uneasily with stated policies concerning research concentration and selectivity. The results do not, however, demonstrate either convergence or divergence with respect to individual institution's research management plans, priorities or general research orientation. But they do suggest that this is another area deserving much more detailed research given the importance which mass systems of higher education place on institutional diversity.

Higher Education Policy at the National Level

The final section of the questionnaire asked respondents to express an opinion on the influences and effects of higher education policy at the national level. There were a number of questions designed to elicit opinion on the influences of DEETYA practices and government policies on institutional autonomy and management. The responses are provided in Table 26.

As indicated in Chapter 3, the institutional autonomy debate in higher education is highly complex and occurs in most countries. It was argued that probably more factors than government policy per sé influence perceptions about institutional autonomy. Also, it would seem that the policy framework in which DEETYA operates allows for little or no direct government intervention in institutional affairs (see 'DEET Overview', Chapter 3). On the other hand, government's 'power of the purse' can be a most effective policy lever. The complexity and uncertainty of the institutional autonomy debate should be kept in mind when interpreting the results in Table 26.

In general, the responses do not indicate strong support for government policy and there appears to be some doubt about the degree to which current DEETYA/ institutional relationships protect institutional autonomy. For example, 46 per cent of the respondents disagreed with the statement that the DEETYA profile negotiations are an effective means of allocating resources to higher education institutions and 27 per cent were not sure. Even more importantly, executive officers expressed the strongest degree of disagreement with this statement, people one would assume would have more direct experience of the profile negotiation exercise than any other institutional officers. The high proportion of Heads of Departments who were not sure about this statement is probably a reflection of their lack of direct knowledge of and/or involvement in the profile exercise.

Over one-half of the respondents seem to think that institutional profiles limit institutional autonomy. However, at the executive level opinion appears to be evenly split on this issue. Of the three levels of management, Deans express the strongest opinion about the effects of profile negotiations on institutional autonomy. This may be due to the fact that Deans bear the brunt of the resource flows (or lack there of) that result from the negotiations.

Respondents appear to be of strong opinion that federal government policy unduly constrains the pursuit of basic institutional goals and in particular that DEETYA has too much influence over micromanagement issues within institutions. Executive officers compared to the other two levels of management are only slightly more reserved with respect to their opinions on these issues.

Where there is an interesting diversity of opinion amongst the three levels of management is with respect to the benefits or otherwise of institutional competition for resources and students encouraged by government policy. Just over 60 per cent of the Executive Officers agree that competition has been healthy for higher education, while Deans and Heads of Departments are more evenly divided on the issue. But there certainly does not appear to be any wholesale rejections of the idea of the benefits of competition.

Results reported in the analysis of other sections of the survey indicated that State governments have little influence on higher education institutions, despite the fact that in most cases they have the ultimate legislative authority. In terms of the results reported in Table 26, respondents see little need to increase State government influence on higher education policy. About one-quarter of the Deans express an opinion that State governments could play a stronger role in higher education policy, and it is likely that they would be Deans of faculties, such as education or health, that have stronger State government connections than other faculties. But overall, nearly 70 per cent of respondents indicate no need to increase the influence of State governments on higher education policy, with Executive Officers particularly adamant on this issue. This clearly reflects the reality that over the past thirty years or so, Australian higher education has become mainly a national concern.

Table 26: Opinions on the Influence of Government Policy on
Institutional Management and Autonomy

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

The architects of the Unified National System (UNS) indicated a number of benefits and enhanced opportunities for staff and students that would result from replacement of the binary system of higher education with the UNS. The Task Force on Amalgamations (Report of the Task Force on Amalgamations ... 1989), for example, claimed that some of the potential educational benefits of larger organisations were 'the expanded range of available disciplines and categories of award; improved flexibility of subject choice; better provisions for transfer of credit both within and between different disciplines; an enhanced level of student services ...; and increased strength of academic departments or schools'. With respect to academic staff, the claimed benefits included 'concentration of research and development effort with more efficient use of expensive facilities and a stronger basis for securing both public and private funds; [and] increased opportunities for career advancement of academic ... staff'. Responses as to enhancement of opportunity for staff and students under the UNS are provided in Table 27.

Table 27: Opinions on Enhancement of Staff and Student Opportunities
with Respect to the Creation of the Unified National System

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

With respect to enhancement of opportunities for students under the Unified National System compared to the former binary system, the majority of Executive Officers and Deans appear to agree that students have benefited. Heads of Departments are more divided on the issue, with a large proportion (28%) not sure. When it comes to enhancement of conditions and opportunities for former College of Advanced Education staff, there is rather strong opinion that such staff have benefited, with Deans and particularly Executive Officers quite adamant that this is the case. This result seems to confirm various anecdotal observations, such as that of the then editor of Nature upon completion of a recent tour of Australia:

Events have shown that many of the shotgun marriages decreed by Dawkins have turned out well. The University of Sydney's nursing school, for example, is now an integrated part of the university, and has not made academics previously in post believe that their careers have been demeaned

(Maddox 1995: 181).

In terms of the position of former university staff, there is more ambivalence about whether they have benefited or not. About 60 per cent of Executive Officers and close to 50 per cent of Deans disagree that former university sector staff have experienced a restriction of conditions and opportunities under the Unified National System, whereas Heads of Departments are much more divided on the issue, with a relatively large proportion, 28 per cent, simply not sure. But overall, there does not appear to be any overwhelming concern that opportunities and conditions with respect to either students or staff have suffered with the creation of the United National System, and some evidence to suggest that they have actually improved, particularly for students and former College of Advanced Education staff. However, whatever benefits respondents perceive for staff and students under the UNS they do not appear to be a function of increased organisational size.

The question of organisational size was an important issue with respect to the various policies that led to the creation of the Unified National System. Both the Green and White papers asserted that small institutions were economically inefficient, that there were economies of scale to be gained through amalgamating institutions into larger units, and that larger organisations provided definite benefits and enhanced opportunities for both staff and students. These claims about the benefits of increased organisational size were confirmed and further elaborated by the Task Force on Amalgamations in Higher Education. The Task Force claimed that 'proposals for institutional amalgamations are based on considerations of educational effectiveness and efficiency and ... administrative cost efficiencies'; and that 'administrative cost efficiencies arise principally from the elimination of unnecessary duplication in services and by allowing more intensive use of equipment and facilities'. The opinions of the higher education managers responding to this survey leave some doubt about whether the benefits and economies of scale associated with organisational size have actually been achieved (see Table 28).

The majority of Executive Officers agree that larger organisations provide more opportunity to shift resources with changes in demand, while Deans and Heads of Departments appear less convinced. But there is substantial agreement amongst all respondents that the larger organisations encouraged under the Unified National System have not achieved the economies of scale expected.

While Executive Officers are about evenly divided in their opinion, the overall view appears to be that larger organisations have not provided staff with more resources and opportunities to strengthen teaching. Views with respect to research, however, are less clear. Just over 50 per cent of the Executive Officers are of the opinion that larger organisations provide staff with more resources and opportunities to strengthen research, while a little under 50 per cent of the Deans and Heads of Departments seem to hold the opposite view.

Table 28: Opinions about Benefits of Organisational Size

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

When it comes to whether or not larger organisations have greater political influence with government and the community, the overall view is more or less evenly divided, with a lean towards suggesting that organisational size is not necessarily an important factor. As with many other items in this section of the survey, Executive Officers seem to adopt a somewhat more positive stance as to the influence of larger organisations than do Deans and Heads of Departments. But it also should be pointed out that a fairly substantial proportion of the respondents are simply not sure whether larger organisations provide more influence, opportunities and/or resources. Where less doubt appears evident is with respect to the total size of the higher education system in terms of number of institutions.

Over the last few years, Australia has experienced a dramatic rationalisation of the number of higher education institutions. But from time to time, the view is still expressed at the national level that the country has too many universities. Nearly 60 per cent of the Executive Officers responding to this survey appear not to believe that this is the case. Nonetheless, 31 per cent do agree that Australia has to many universities, and about 40 per cent of Deans and Heads of Departments hold the same opinion. It is interesting that a relatively small proportion of respondents indicate that they are not sure about this item; opinion seems to fall one way or the other.

The questionnaire responses do not reveal why some respondents believe that Australia has too many higher education institutions. This opinion may be related to the pressures placed on higher education resulting from the dramatic increase in student numbers in recent years, or it may relate to concerns about institutional quality. But in any case, it is an area requiring much more research.

In the early days of the creation of the Unified National System, there was a clear policy directive that the opportunity for an institution to be funded for a full range of teaching and research activities was directly tied to size (see introduction). This is one factor that sparked the extensive round of institutional amalgamations that occurred in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Since then, the question of whether to concentrate teaching and particularly research resources on only a few institutions has come on and off the policy agenda a number of times. In terms of the respondents to this survey, it would appear that such a policy move would prove to be highly unpopular (see Table 29). About two-thirds of respondents at each level of management disagreed that the concentration of resources on only a few institutions for a full range of teaching and research activities would be highly desirable, with relatively few not sure responses. On the other hand, about one-quarter of respondents at each management level agreed that concentration should be the case. Whether or not these respondents are concentrated in only a few of the larger and more powerful institutions is not revealed by the present analysis.

Table 29: Opinions on Resource Concentration

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

The Green and White papers stated that the Unified National System was not to be a unitary system. Throughout both policy documents, much emphasis is placed on the diversity of higher education, with an explicit statement that institutions would be funded for what they did, not for what they are called. Respondents were asked to provide opinions about the present diversity of higher education, the results of which are expressed in Table 30.

The majority of Executive officers agree that diversity within institutions has increased with respect to educational programs and research. Deans are more divided on the issue, though 47 per cent agree that the creation of the United National System has increased program diversity and 42 per cent indicate the same for research. With respect to program diversity, the opinion of Heads of Departments appears to be evenly divided, while a little over 40 per cent disagree that the United National System has resulted in more diversity with respect to teaching methods and research. Also, a relatively large proportion of Heads of Departments appear to be not sure about the various aspects of diversity listed in the questionnaire. It may be the case that Executive officers and Deans are in a better position than Heads of Departments to judge whether or not there has been increases in diversity.

With respect to increases in diversity between institutions, executive officers are somewhat more positive than the other categories of respondents. But even so, it is only with respect to research that a majority of Executive Officers agree that diversity has increased.

Table 30: Opinions about Diversity of Higher Education within and between Institutions

*Including respondents who did not indicate their management position

Both with and between institutions, opinion of all categories of respondents seems to lean towards disagreeing with the statement that diversity in teaching methods has increased. Of course, with respect to this and the other two items (educational programs and research), responses say nothing about whether people think diversity should have increased. Overall, there seems to be a balance of opinion about whether or not diversity has increased. As discussed in some detail in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, diversity is an important issue for all higher education systems, but there needs to be much more detailed research before much can be concluded about the diversity of Australian higher education.

Overall there is fairly strong criticism directed to the outcomes of national higher education policies. In particular, there appears to be majority opinion that government/DEETYA unduly interferes in the affairs of institutions. Whether this is actually true or not is quite another matter, and the validity of the opinions being expressed here would need to be assessed by other means. But in another sense, perceptions of undue government/external interference in internal institutional affairs may themselves be indicators of the degree to which institutions regard themselves as autonomous, self-managing enterprises. Nonetheless it is difficult not to conclude that university managers are less convinced of the enhanced institutional autonomy, opportunities and benefits envisaged by the creation of the Unified National System than its architects.

Final Comments by Respondents

The questionnaire invited respondents to provide additional comments regarding the issues which were the focus of the survey as well as related concerns. Just under a fifth of respondents took up this option. The comments ranged from concerns about the impact of government policies on the higher education system, the burden quality audits and the increasing use of performance indicators has on academic staff, and methodological criticisms of the survey. The following are illustrative of some of these concerns:

a university system too expensive for the government to fund.

(Head of Department, Sciences)

From my perspective the changes of the last eight years have been largely positive, releasing old CAEs from impossibly divergent expectations, and forcing older universities to be more self-reflective and accountable. But there are problems with gross financial inequities and either over devolved systems of financial management or continually cumbersome unreformed financial management structures.

(Head of Department, Social Sciences and Humanities)

More and more is being placed on universities in terms of record keeping, supplying of statistics, performance etc, etc. As evidenced by the rounds of so-called quality audits. The quality audits and exercise such as this are really pretty useless, since in all institutions there are going to be good parts and bad parts. You will only make the good parts better and improve the bad parts by using a much more 'local' approach than the broad brush job of the quality audit.

The university teaching scene has become harder and harder over recent years. This is because of a reduction in funding, but the growth of administration remains unchecked. In our own Department, we would like to improve the quality of teaching, but this is almost impossible because of the loads placed on us.

The proliferation of universities has not changed much in this scene, except that the increase in the competition has put even more pressure on. To a large extent, all universities aim to do everything, whereas it would be far better to get individual universities to specialise. For instance, some in engineering, some in law, some in humanities, etc, etc. But this would require cooperation, and it is simply too much to think for both academics and administration to consider giving up some of the empire they have built.

(Head of Department, Sciences)

Amalgamations etc have provided splendid ramps for personal ambitions without adding to the educational value of the universities-and they seem to have cost a considerable amount of money at the administrative end. One test is to count the number of administrative posts in a 1980 telephone directory and compare it with a 1995 directory. (I think X2 is a fair estimate). Departments/Faculties vary considerably: at [this institution] - the reorganisation of Schools into 4 Faculties has not been without trouble. Only one really works well as a cohesive unit (partly because of personalties/tradition) while in some of the others there does not appear to have been enough effort placed on cohesive effort. Probably better to have left the system as it was and to have evened-up the financial implications. (One School with less than 20 staff had as much say as another with 140 staff and more than half students in the university).

(Head of Department, Social Sciences and Humanities)

Section IV-My overall opinion is that we have moved to a culture of distrust requiring endless evaluation, assessment and accreditation. It is time-consuming, non-productive, and still does not/cannot identify/eradicate the real rorts in the system!! Collegial governance, albeit in a more streamlined fashion perhaps, is the best insurance against poor/dishonest practice, even in a highly competitive environment (which itself is not necessarily bad!).

(Head of Department, Sciences)

We have attempted to change a traditional British University structure to one geared to mass education, entrepreneurial attitudes and a corporate approach. In addition quality audits etc have been introduced. This has been done in haste, with poorly trained executives, with too much interference down from DEET, and in an environment where too many get their kicks from continuous change and/or chaos. The whole system desperately needs a settling period where we can look at where we have come from, where we are going too, and the best ways of achieving our goals. We can learn a lot from the US and I wish we would copy some of their better approaches.

(Head of Department, Sciences)

I previously held a position in a UK University which like all UK universities has been subject to quality assurance and research selectivity for over 10 years. This has produced a fitter leaner system. There are staff teaching in Australian universities who should not be teaching at the University level - their research records are very poor. Part of this problem relates to inadequate staff appraisal and development, which is now being addressed.

(Head of Department (discipline affiliation unknown))

Universities are suffering from: too little funding; too many weak and unmotivated students; too little interest on the part of commerce, industry and the community in what they do; AND a succession of governments and government organisation like DEET which show zero leadership, collect masses of data, fail to make sense of it and generally waste time.

(Dean, Sciences)

My view of the world is that:

1. DEET/Government seek to better control education which leads to increased work load for universities which react by appointing more administrators;
2. more administrators lead to redistribution of budget for teaching departments and increase of workload therefore;
3. workload for HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS and academics is greatly increased without any staffing resource support.
4. This pattern is augmented and replicated by DEET reducing basic funding and requiring universities to seek funding for 'special initiatives', 'quality', each separately [ ] adding exponentially to the administrative load and NOT improving basic resources and ability to do the normal task of technology/knowledge transfer.

(Head of Department, Sciences)

The demand, and hence viability, for courses is controlled by their perceived popularity with high school students. The needs of industry and the community for a high quality student intake in specific areas is effectively ignored. Competition, forced by the RFM, between universities taking students from the same area will gradually lead to the development of populist, 'interesting' courses that are perceived to be currently fashionable by departments and school leavers. This trend is of great concern.

Industry and employer groups should have a direct and powerful role in controlling how funding and quota places are allocated to tertiary education in Australia.

(Dean, Sciences)

I do not want to be a middle manager, especially in an institution which gives token and unhelpful support. Areas such as financial management, personnel, and info. technology are rendered particularly difficult by unnecessary complications (e.g. unreadable balance sheets). There is insufficient support, and it is ad hoc and inaccessible.

The DEET demands have effectively hampered every academic activity of this Department by necessitating all staff to devote enormous amounts of time to collecting useless generalisations which masquerade as statistics.

Amalgamation of CAEs and Unis has resulted in an unworkable system where, apples are trying desperately and unsuccessfully to become oranges-the students lose out.

If there were anyone else who would or could be Head of Department, I would happily hand the task over and get on with what I do best, research and teaching.

My motivation and that of my colleagues is at an all-time low. Universities are not getting better as a result of all these 'guidelines' and 'quality assurance' mechanisms-we might be getting better at answering the questions, but continued lack of funding serves only to drive research and teaching into the ground.

(Head of Department, Sciences)

Larger universities in the UNS do not equate necessarily with more effective/ efficient or high quality ones. Indeed the Corporate World now tends to favour small, lean, focussed enterprises and we should be looking again at the prospect that 'small is beautifu'.

(Senior Executive)

The administrative overhead imposed on Departmental Heads in particular has grown dramatically in the past 10 years. This applies particularly to requests for statistical information and proofs that quality checks are in place and being used. No account is taken at any level of the costs of these requests and practices. In particular, no attempt is made to cost the supply of statistical information of dubious final value.

(Head of Department, Sciences)

1. Managers are not sufficiently trained. Most are academics whose expertise was in research and (perhaps) teaching, not in administration.
2. Management has forgotten that it exists to aid academics, not vice versa.
3. Decisions are now fundamentally based on financial considerations, not academic worth.
4. Devolution of (some) financial management to the level of Departments/Schools limits academic freedom in research and teaching.
5. There is a veneer of informing (involving) academics and students in change, but in reality decisions are made at the top and 'market forces' invoked to explain lack of choice.
6. There is a growing divide between management and academics/students which has resulted in very low morale. Standards are falling under the weight of increasing bureaucracy which is self-serving.
7. Falling real incomes of academics also contributes to low morale, especially when top managers' salaries have increased.

(Head of Department, Social Sciences and Humanities)

This university could not have achieved as much as it has done in the last 41/2 years if it did not have excellent management practices, a willing staff, adequate devolution of responsibility and decision making and an overarching corporate plan to inform our development.

(Dean, Sciences)

The university has undergone massive and much needed structural change over the last decade. Reforms include almost full devolution of financial resources to faculties and departments, restructuring of central administration and substantial decentralisation and evolution of administrative activities, and reshaping the senior administration.

Major reviews of administration, the academic board, the library, information technology, faculties and departments have taken place and implementation of recommendations has been completed or in progress.

The university is (and has been for decades) allocating insufficient resources to equipment and capital works because of rising staffing budgets. Steps are being taken to address this problem and substantial improvements are occurring. These activities have been helped significantly by the introduction of strategic planning, by financial devolution (which has increased knowledge of resource issues across a wider group) and by assigning greater responsibilities to deans.

I believe most academic decisions are still being made collegial but resource decisions are driven largely by the devolved management chain. Progress in achieving changes has been hindered by inadequate management skills at all levels.

Not all staff appreciate the need for change!

(Senior Executive)

For the amount of effort and number of hours academics and administrators put into their jobs the financial rewards are very low compared to community employment. There seems to be an increasing under-valuing of teaching and an unrealistic impression that academics do nothing (in terms of hours of work) are unrealistic (not of the real world) and overpaid - I wish, particularly at the end of a 12 hour day!

(Head of Department, Sciences)

Universities are not academic institutions any more; they are meal- ticket factories, and are managed as such. There are far too many 'universities' and far too many students, the calibre of which is appalling.

The country has lost the plot in higher education, and Vice-Chancellors (and the like) are as much to blame for this as is the government. Their tendency to put financial 'management' first and academic management a long last is downright pathetic, and ours is worse than most. Even nominally 'academic' decisions are being made for financial and pseudo-financial reasons(e.g. no one believes that most of our recent increased 'quality' measures have anything to do with a real concern for quality, as they are pure money-grabbing and market-share retaining exercises).

(Dean, Social Sciences and Humanities)

Endnotes

1. The initial intention was to have a second mail out of the questionnaire about 6 weeks after the first mail out. However, at the time the survey was set up, the government announced the setting up of the Higher Education Management Review. This led to a heightened sensitivity from some university Senior Executives about the issues raised in the survey. It was also evident that some of the designated respondents had confused the Hoare inquiry with the governance and management survey. As a result it was considered expedient to restrict the survey to one mail out only.
2. It should be noted in this context that the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee has for several years provided a variety of staff development courses for those holding senior management positions within universities. In addition management training courses are provided through a number of other organisations, including consultants and the activities of professional bodies such as the Australasian Institute of Tertiary Education Administrators.