Organisational and Staff Development Services - Food for Thought: More Morsels

"I start with the premise that the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers." - Ralph Nader

Building community through conversation

Welcome to the Food for Thought: More Morsels forum.

This records the main discussion which occurs at each Food for Thought forum. It also provides the opportunity to extend that discussion into the ‘virtual’ realm. If you have more to say, or new thoughts to add, please contribute below.

When appropriate, the ideas expressed will be developed into discussion papers and promulgated in other forums – for example the Leadership Matters newsletter. This extended conversation is intended to encourage debate and reflection leading to a better understanding of the issues important to staff. Hopefully, it may contribute to the process leading to resolution of issues.

Making Change Stick: Presentation from Guest Speaker Shayne Silcox Fri 16 Sept
PowerPoint from the 'Making Change Stick' session is now available for download in PDF format in either one slide per page (1.6Mb) or six slides per page (906Kb).

Topic	Replies	Views	Started By	Last Post

Achieving Value from School and Course Reviews	149	4997	Vivienne Blake	01 Jul 2008 16:43
School and course reviews are sometimes seen as exercises in compliance rather than valuable in their own right. How can we change this? The panel to stimulate thinking on this topic were Trudi McGlade of University Secretariat, Judy Fetherston who has been an Executive Officer to School Reviews, Professor George Stewart who has chaired several school and course reviews in Australia and internationally. Initial comments from the panel were: The opportunity for self assessment is the chief benefit of the review. Find out in advance what the problems are and be working on them. It is crucial to choose good reviewers. Invest time into finding out, from other Schools which have been reviewed, the names of reviewers they would recommend i.e. those who are effective, fair and well-organised. Never underestimate the importance of getting students involved. The impact they have on the panel is often outstanding. You will need to start early to prepare for a review (i.e. several months in advance), but it is also difficult to motivate people when the review seems so far away in the future. Look after your reviewers. They are busy people so supply them with succinct information e.g. tabulated information rather than volumes of reading. Entertain them while they are here, though do allow them one night free to concentrate on writing their draft findings. Schools undertaking reviews can submit a school teaching portfolio to the Distinguished Teaching and Learning Award for School, and be eligible to compete for a $35,000 prize. Full details can be found at: http://www.teachingandlearning.uwa.edu.au/__data/page/19512/Distinguished_T&L_Award_for_Schools_Guidelines.pdf Group discussion points and questions were: Q. Who decides if recommendations of the review are to be implemented? A. This is subject to negotiation by several parties which may include the school, the Dean and the DVC. Twelve months after the review is completed, a report on actions undertaken and outcomes achieved is prepared by the School and passed to the Vice Chancellery for submission to Academic Council. Q. What if a recommendation/finding is not agreed to by a School? A. Sometimes reviewers have their own agenda. The support of the Dean is useful here, as he/she can usually identify 'pet agendas' by reviewers and filter them out. Again, such an issue is subject to negotiation by the school, the Dean and the DVC. Also remember that the draft report prepared by the reviewers is an opportunity to correct any finding errors. Q. What if the review is subverted by a staff member or student who 'has an axe to grind'? A. Reviewers have a lot of experience with this, and can usually recognise that there is a personal agenda running. Also, in preparation for the review, consult your own staff to see what they think the issues are. Be prepared to address these issues. Do what you can to make any needed changes before the review. Have plans or at least responses worked out to deal with outstanding issues that are likely to surface in the review. Q. What are some tips for managing the political environment in which the review is taking place. A. Use your reviewers intelligently. Give them information and interpret what it means to you. They can work from this, taking your perspective and analysis into account. It is useful to highlight areas that need looking at, and ask reviewers to comment. This can help develop solutions. It can also be used to exert appropriate pressure externally. George told of the time he was a acting as a reviewer and a Head of School, who was lobbying for better accommodation, fell down some sub-standard stairs while showing the review panel around. His call for improved accommodation was supported by the review panel! One wit in the group asked "Did he jump or was he pushed?" Also, the more people who are involved in a review, the better the outcome. It is counterproductive for a Head of School to try to do it on his/her own or with minimum consultation. Get the School together to discuss the review and involve people as broadly as possible. Other comments made by the audience were: A Head of School, who had just experienced a review, supported the observation that self-appraisal aspect was the major benefit of the review. The opportunity to collate and share information across the School was very valuable and enlightening. It stimulated thinking. One very big advantage of being a reviewer is that it gives you the opportunity to examine, in great detail, other Schools/Universities who are doing similar work. It gives a unique opportunity for benchmarking and for learning about our own strengths and areas for further development. The role of the Executive Officer vis-a-vis the Faculty Manager needs to be more clearly defined. The University guidelines state that Faculty should provide leave relief for the Executive Officer involved in reviews. See Guidelines/Appendix 2 at http://www.secretariat.uwa.edu.au/home/policies/reviews Do you have any further thoughts to share, or questions to ask, on 'Achieving value from School and course reviews'? If so, please make a posting to this interactive site. The names of all people who make a posting will be put into a draw and the winner of a $35 book voucher will be selected at the next Food for Thought on 9 June 2005.
Research Infrastructure: Coming changes	63	5902	Vivienne Blake	10 Mar 2008 18:47
Panel: Dr Campbell Thompson, Director of Research Services; Claudia Hartig, School Manager for Centre of Water Research; Carleen Ellis, School Manager for Surgery and Pathology, and Diane Christensen, Business Manager for the Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems and School Manager for Civil and Resource Engineering. The panel members gave some perspectives to stimulate thought about the coming changes in research infrastructure, and their points are summarised below. Campbell Thompson provided some brief background information. The current research infrastructure policy has been in place since 1992. There are two principles underlying current policy which need to be preserved. The first is the notion of cost recovery and here it is important to differentiate between cost and the price the client is charged. price. Research always ‘costs’ the same to undertake, but if it is ‘priced’ wrongly, then the research runs at a loss. Secondly, the University operates under the principle of ‘competitive neutrality’. This means that, because we receive public funding, we must fully cost our research in order to ensure that we do not unfairly disadvantage researchers from the private sector (many of whom are our graduates!). There are two models currently being proposed for consideration. The first is that a flat rate 35% or 15% infrastructure charge be levied and centrally administered by Research Services (Note: The rate is 35% if intellectual property or publishing rights are claimed by the funding agency, or 15% if all intellectual property and publishing rights are owned by the University). It is important to remember that 68% of all infrastructure charges go directly back to the School to be used to provide their own infrastructure. In the past, many schools have waived their own portion of the infrastructure levy but under this proposed option that would no longer be possible. Waivers add to the complexity in interpretation of the guidelines.. Also Australian Competitive Grants ( e.g. ARC, NHMRC) are exempt from infrastructure charges – a list of these are on the Research Services website. In addition bona fide donations and bequests are exempt. If this option is taken up, Research Services will attempt to simplify the research infrastructure guidelines and provide clear explanations and examples of how to fully cost projects.. The second option is to have Schools manage the process (including deciding on waivers), based on a set of targets negotiated each year with the Head of School, using their research and consulting income averaged over the previous two years. This option would need a transition period, especially in relation to research projects that are affected by intellectual property determinations. Other panel members gave a series of observations drawn from the own experiences with research infrastructure issues, both inside and outside the University. Views included • We should pay full infrastructure because o Competitive neutrality is important – we shouldn’t compete unfairly with our own graduates o We all use the central infrastructure everyday, and it needs to be paid for o If we waive infrastructure in order to give ‘mates rates’ to a client costs are not fully covered. In the end the Operating Grant (and ultimately the tax payer) subsidises the work. The only winner is the client. • Different factors operate according to whether a project has a large equipment component and/or a large salary component . We need to learn how to cost projects and develop accurate budgets. • The term ‘infrastructure’ means different things at different levels i.e. faculty, University, state government, research quantum etc. We need to clarify the terminology when discussing infrastructure with people • It’s often unclear who makes the rules (research Services? School Manager? Head of School? ) and this clouded ‘chain of command’ makes it hard to explain to people what is going on • The current complexity is confusing and allows people to try to interpret rules to their own advantage Following small group discussion at their tables, over lunch, the group came back together to share thoughts and ask questions. Points raised were: • The infrastructure levy is important, but the forecasting model being proposed (as one of the options) could drive us in the wrong direction. • There was strong endorsement from this group, that research infrastructure is best collected and administered (including policy development) at the central level in research services • A set of guidelines, including a package of worked examples for academics, is being developed by Research Services and was strongly supported by Food for Thought participants • Research Services are seeking support from the Schools in helping to educate staff about research infrastructure. Policy and explanatory materials are being developed, but ways of delivering the message need to be found. Often Research Services schedules talks or presentations, but very few people turn up • One person raised the issue that ARC grants assume that infrastructure (eg computers) is already provided, and this cannot form part of grant application. However, in some Schools, this basic infrastructure is not provided • Campbell talked about ‘deep infrastructure’ which included such things as existing facilities and equipment (including laboratory and office space); existing research support staff (including UWA-funded research assistants and technical officers, etc.); administrative support; and other indirect research infrastructure and support services such as libraries, computer services, telecommunications, power and lighting, and building maintenance and cleaning. • There was discussion of the various role played by Research Services versus Office of Industry and Innovation. Campbell said liaison was taking place and most issues hade been resolved • The current provision that research under $50,000 is treated differently would no longer apply – all would be subject to 35% or 15% infrastructure charge. If you have any further thoughts to add or opinions to express, please make a posting to this site.
Food for Thought 28 September 2004: How can general and technical staff be empowered in a predominantly academic environment?	8	5437	Kenn Martin	25 Nov 2006 19:45
The following summary records views expressed by individuals, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the whole group. Some observations made about the issue were: • Disempowerment of general / technical is entrenched at UWA and has been there for a long time • Different schools have different levels of problem with this – for some there is little distinction in how staff are treated and in other schools distinctions are very marked • There are structural issues involved eg the real power positions are only open to academics • Is this issue related to a problem with ‘maverick individuals’ or is it a group problem? • Powerful people, or those who bring in money, get away with ‘bad behaviour’ • Some people do not want empowerment and are happy to avoid decision-making responsibilities Possible steps to address the issue of empowerment of general staff • A two-pronged approach is needed o address structural issues o Improving self-efficacy of staff • Finance and other delegations need review to place power at an appropriate level within schools ie what can be signed off by School Managers rather than Heads of School? (This is forthcoming) • Classification issues need addressing. The current review of School Manager positions and the Head of School role is very important • Previous strategies to address structural changes have included creation of School Manager positions and encouraging partnerships between Heads of School and School Managers • There is a need for mutual respect between academic and general staff • Greater management support and training is required, especially for new academic managers o what about those who ‘need’ development but don’t recognise this? • Moving on / up needs to be part of mindset for general staff. This needs to be encouraged by Heads of School eg support secondments • We need to operate within the context that we are employees of University, not the school. Leaders need to support general staff in seeking advancement, rather than take the ‘local’ view which puts local operational concerns first • The role of succession planning in supporting movement and flexibility needs to be thought through and acted upon • Empowerment requires the ‘letting go’ of power / authority by those who previously exercised this power • The boundaries between academic and general staff are becoming more blurred eg web designers, lab instructors Do you have further thoughts or ideas to offer? If so, please post them on this site to encourage further discussion.

Start a new topic!