A comparison of academic and non- academic staff perceptions of higher education changes using a competing values framework: A question of balance Don

A comparison of academic and non-A comparison of academic and non-academic staff perceptions of higher academic staff perceptions of higher

education changes using a competing education changes using a competing values framework: A question of balancevalues framework: A question of balance

Don Sanderson Queensland University of Technology

Vivaldi: The Four Seasons (from The Trial Between Harmony & Invention)

ATEM QLD May 26, 2006 2

Overview of Presentation“Kites & Compasses”“Kites & Compasses”

• Focus of presentation • Methodology• Results• Discussion


Foci

• Loss of human relations values felt more acutely by non-academic staff

• Academic staff and non-academic staff numbers – balance and imbalance


Change and higher education

• Corporatisation• Losses and gains


‘Them and us’• “When the literature on

higher education draws on such work, it generally contrasts administrators’ and professionals’ different bases of authority (position versus expertise) and aims of control (accountability versus autonomy)” … and the danger is that administrators can be cast as ‘villains’”

(Rhoades & Slaughter, 1991, p. 189).


An untenable polemic

• Polemic is too simplistic. • It is more likely that organisational

participants operate in dual or multiple capacities, across value structures or paradigms.


Methodology

• Methoda. Triangulationb. Participantsc. Limitations


Interview participants (n = 12)

Code Primary

Role Secondary

Role Sex Length of

Service Status

Ac1 Academic Female Long-serving +20 years Full-time

Ac2 Academic Male Long-serving +20 years Full-time

Ac3 Academic Female Long-serving +20 years Full-time

Ac4 Academic Female Short-serving + 5 years Full-time

Ac5 Academic Male Long-serving +20 years Full-time

Ac6 Academic Male Short-serving + 5 years Full-time

Ac7 Academic Male Medium + 10 years Full-time

N-Ac1 Manager Academic (research)

Female Medium + 10 years Full-time

N-Ac2 Administrator Student (part-time)

Male Short + 5 years Full-time

N-Ac3 Manager Male Long-serving + 20 years Full-time

N-Ac4 Manager Academic (research)

Female Medium + 10 years Full-time

N-Ac5 Administrator Female Medium + 10 years Full-time


The Competing Values Framework (CVF)

Human Relations Model Ends: Cohesion Morale Means: Training Dev. Of human resources Internal Focus

F l e x i b i l i t y

Open Systems Model Ends: Growth, resources acquisition, external support Means: Adaptability Readiness

Ends: Stability Control Means: Information management Communication Internal Process Model

C o n t r o l

External Focus Ends: Productivity Efficiency Means: Planning Goal-setting Rational Goal Model


Human Relations Model Means: Development of human resources (1) LR: Mentor – (4);Facilitator (1) IR: Higher morale (1); Higher levels of leader credibility (1) MIS: Computer –aided instruction (4); Interpersonal communicating and conferencing (7) MIS-SC: User controllability (12) Terms: Family (2); Collegial (3) Internal Focus

F l e x i b i l i t y

Open Systems Model IE: Innovation and Change (9); Change (10) Ends: Growth (1), Resource acquisition (7); External support (5) Means: Adaptability (1); Readiness (1) LR: Innovator (6); Broker (9) S: Non-routine task technology (8) IR: Higher morale (1); Higher levels of leader credibility (1) MIS: Inter-organisational linking (3) MIS-SC: Ad hoc (3) Terms: Entrepreneurial (1)

Means: Information management (7); Communication (2) LR: Monitor (2) S: Vertical coordination (4) IR: Lower morale (22); Lower levels of leadership credibility (1); Higher levels of conflict (24); More resistance to change (5) MIS: Internal monitoring (12); Internal controlling (2); Record keeping (13) MIS-SC: Standardised (3) GDP: Data-based process (10) Terms: Bureaucratic (6); Top-down (1) Internal Process Model

C o n t r o l

External Focus Ends: Productivity (5); Efficiency (6) Means: Planning (1); Goal-setting (1) LR: Producer (4); Director (1) IR: Lower morale (22); Lower levels of leadership credibility (1); Higher levels of conflict (24); More resistance to change (5) GDP: Goal-centred process (1) Terms: Driven (2); Quality (4) Rational Goal Model

All interviewees mapped onto CVF matrix according to frequencies


Quadrant strength by attribute frequency: Both groups

Group

HRM quadrant

by attribute

frequency

OSM quadrant

by attribute

frequency

IPM quadrant

by attribute

frequency

RGM quadrant

by attribute

frequency Academic

(n = 7) 15

(7.31%) 35

(17.07%) 86

(41.95%) 69

(33.65%) Non-

Academic (n = 5)

14 (15.56%)

30 (33.34%)

34.5 (38.34%)

11.5 (12.78%)

Total (n = 12)

29 (11.43%)

65 (25.2%)

120.5 (40.14%)

80.5 (23.21%)


Academic and Non-Academic groups - Interviews

Org. A Org. B

Org. C Org. D

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Academic Non-Academic

IPM RGM

HRM OSM


Survey results

Respondent groups rating by culture type

Respondent group

Org A (HRM)

Org B (OSM)

Org C (IPM)

Org D (RGM)

Academics (n = 28)

23.47 20.3 24.12 32.1

Non-Academic (n = 15)

13.31 25.8 27.36 33.53

All Respondents (n = 43)

18.29 23.05 25.75 32.82


Academic and Non-Academic groups - Survey

Org. A Org. B

Org. C Org. D

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Academics: Non-Academics:

HRM OSM

IPM RGM


Comparison between Interview and Survey Academics

Org. A Org. B

Org. C Org. D

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

HRM OSM

IPM

RGM

Interview Academics: Survey Academics Combined groups:


Comparison between Interview and Survey Non-Academics

Org. A Org. B

Org. C Org. D

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

HRM OSM

IPM

RGM

Interview Non-Academics: Survey Non-Academics Combined Groups:


Comparison of Academic and Non-Academic groups: Model strength

Org. A Org. B

Org. C Org. D

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Academics Non-Academics

HRM

RGM

OSM

IPM


All respondents

Org. A Org. B

Org. C Org. D

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Human Relations

Model. ‘Irresponsible country club’

Internal Process Model.

‘Frozen bureaucracy’

Rational Goal Model.

‘Oppressive sweat shop’

Corporate-collegial

Corporate-mercantile

Open Systems Model.

‘Tumultuous anarchy’


Ohio State University Extension

Org. A Org. B

Org. C Org. D

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Human Relations Model (HRM)

Open Systems Model (OSM)

Internal Process Model (IPM)

Rational Goal Model (RGM)

S

N

W E


Point 2. Balancing numbers

• Study research • Case study• Other organisations


Research

• Halfond reports that in the US over the period 1975 to 1990,

• “EEOC figures show, student enrollment has risen 10 percent and the number of full-time faculty members has increased 21 percent. Administrative positions, however, increased 45 percent”.

• Source: Halfond, 1991, p. 17


Other government-funded organisations

• Department of Family Services 2004: 52% of the staff were involved in field work while 48% were involved in non-field activities

• Queensland Health 2005: 47.34% in clinical duties, with 52.66% in non-clinical duties

• CMC (2004, p. 149) RECOMMENDATION 5.5 That the current regional structure used by the Department of Families be critically reviewed, with a view to improving the ratio of direct service delivery staff to management and administration staff.

• Reason: The ratio of management and administrative staff to direct service delivery staff is unsatisfactory. The current regional structure appears unwieldy and may be contributing to an imbalance between frontline staff and management/administrative positions.

• Sources: Crime and Misconduct Commission, 2004; Queensland Health, 2005


Case study figures

• From 1991 to 2004 the study’s university saw its student numbers grow by 18.21%, with an increase of 10.66% in academic staff and 15.62% in general staff in terms of actual bodies

• Or an increase of 12.92% for equivalent full time (EFT) students, 13.29% EFT academics and 14.96% in EFT general staff.

• In 2005: 41.12% academic and 58.88% non-academic


Comparison of government-funded organisations – by staff percentages

Comparison of Government-funded Organisations

41.12

58.88

52 47.34

48 52.66

0102030405060708090

100

Dept FamilyServices 2004

Q Health 2005 Case Study 2005

Organisation

Perc

enta

ge

Field

Non-Field


Case Study: Balance between Academic and Non-Academic staff

numbers 1976 - 2005Staff Percentages since 1976

43.23 43.13 45.2 41.12

56.77 56.87 54.8 58.88

0102030405060708090

100

1976 1986 1996 2005

Year

Pece

ntag

e

Academic

Non-Academic

Thankyou

Any questions?

Documents

A comparison of academic and non- academic staff perceptions of higher education changes using a competing values framework: A question of balance Don