hr management - final - leadership foundation

RESEARCH ANDDEVELOPMENTSERIESHuman Resource Management and UniversityPerformance

Final Report

David E. Guest and Michael Clinton Department of Management, King’s College London

RESEARCH ANDDEVELOPMENTSERIESHuman Resource Management and UniversityPerformance

Final Report

David E. Guest and Michael Clinton Department of Management, King’s College London

November 2007

First published in November 2007Leadership Foundation for Higher Education

Published by the Leadership Foundationfor Higher Education

Registered and operational address:Leadership Foundation, 88 Kingsway,London WC2B 6AA, England

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7841 2814Fax: +44 (0) 20 7681 6219E-mail: [email protected]

© Leadership Foundation for Higher Education

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recordingor any information storage and retrieval system, withoutprior permission in writing from the copywriter owner.

ISBN 0-9553788-5-0ISBN 978-0-9553788-5-0

Designed & produced by Abbey DPMPrinted in the United Kingdom

Editor: Helen Goreham

The study was made possible as a result of funding provided by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. The work wascarried out with the active help of the Universities Personnel Association (UPA) who provided the sample for the study. Thesupport of both organisations is gratefully acknowledged.

Professor David Guest

Acknowledgements

1

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

INTRODUCTION 4

FINDINGS 9

THE STRUCTURE OF UNIVERSITY HR DEPARTMENTS 9

THE CONTEXT WITHIN WHICH UNIVERSITY HR DEPARTMENTS OPERATE 12

UNIVERSITY LEADERSHIP AND HRM 18

HR POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN PLACE 20

DIMENSIONS OF UNIVERSITY PERFORMANCE 28

INFLUENCES ON HR ACTIVITIES AND EFFECTIVENESS 32

INFLUENCES ON UNIVERSITY PERFORMANCE 34

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 38

REFERENCES 43

APPENDIX: THE QUESTIONNAIRE 45

2

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERIES

The aims of the study were to explore the current applicationof human resource management (HRM) in universities,assess the leadership and support for human resource (HR)activities and examine the relationship between HRM and arange of indicators of university performance.

The study was conducted in 2006 and consisted ofinterviews and focus groups, mainly with HR directors, and apostal survey of all HR directors belonging to the UPA. 63useable questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 46per cent. The respondents were based in a cross-section ofold, new and very new universities.

The average number of HR specialists employed in theinstitutions examined was 14.5 and the average ratio of HR staff to full time equivalent (FTE) staff in the universitieswas 1:181.

In 52 per cent of universities, the HR department was largelycentralised with nominated links to faculties; in 21 per centit was centralised but organised around functional groups;and in 11 per cent it was organised around a small strategiccore with the rest decentralised. Several had a mix of theseor were in a process of transition.

56 per cent of HR directors said they were members of the topmanagement team. They were more likely to belong to it ifthe team was larger and they had been a director for longer.35 per cent reported to the senior administrator, a third to thevice-chancellor and 29 per cent to a pro-vice chancellor.

The major problems faced by universities, as identified bythese HR directors in mid-2006, were the knock on effects ofthe industrial dispute, leadership and resource issues. Themajor HR challenges they had to face were job evaluation andthe national framework agreement; redundancy, restructuringand change; and industrial relations and the dispute.

Most universities had a HR strategy and believed it was wellintegrated and well supported by top management. HRdirectors were less sure that it was effectivelycommunicated to those who have to implement relatedpolicies and practices.

Almost all HR directors denied that the role of theirdepartment is primarily administrative.

HR directors rated highly the support for HR strategydevelopment and application from the vice-chancellors andtop management. They are rather less positive about thesupport from the middle management.

The most frequently reported HR policies and practices foracademic staff are formal training in teaching for newacademic staff (90%), staff appraisal (75%) and high qualitycomputer-based information systems (67%).

The new initiatives or practices that the HR directors wouldmost like to introduce are performance management(51%), leadership development (40%) and modernising HRsystems (23%).

The HR practices rated most effective by HR directors were recruitment and selection, retention of staff and job evaluation. The least effective were performancemanagement, staff planning/succession planning andmanaging poor performance.

The activities of the HR department rated most effective byHR directors were providing useful advice to managers,providing advice and help to staff and working with tradeunions. The least effective activities were developingcreativity and innovation, managing/minimising bureaucracyand overcoming resistance to change.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

The most successful HR initiatives cited by HR directors werejob evaluation/pay review/National Framework Agreement(NFA), leadership development and review of strategy/policy.

The quality of various aspects of academic staff were ratedhighly, with the exception of their willingness to respondto changes.

Most HR directors rated their own university to be aboveaverage in all respects compared with other universities.

HR directors rated the influence of their department overthe quality of university core outcomes to be low. It washigher with respect to the quality of top management andleadership and still higher with respect to the quality of theHR function.

Subjective ratings of the quality of university performancewere significantly higher among those who reported lowerenvironmental uncertainty, higher effective support from topmanagement, a better HR strategy, more HR practices, moreeffective HR practices and a more effective HR department.

HR directors’ subjective ratings of the quality of theiruniversity were associated with independent ratings of coreindicators of university performance.

There was no direct association between any measures of HRactivities in universities and a range of standard indicators ofuniversity performance including financial indicators.

This is very much a preliminary study, so the results shouldbe viewed with some caution. However the universitysector differs from most others in revealing no associationbetween HRM and performance. The reasons for this maylie in distinctive features of universities, the current state ofdevelopment of the HR function or limitations of the study.

4


INTRODUCTION

The importance of human resource management

It is a widely accepted truism that the way in which staff aremanaged is likely to have an impact on an organisation’sperformance. This view has gained added impetus fromthe prominence given to the resource-based theory of theorganisation. Simply stated, this argues that the key tosuccess lies in the ability to acquire and utilise scarce,valued and inimitable resources. Barney 1, who has beenmost closely identified with this view, suggests that in thecontemporary world, finance and technology are neitherscarce nor inimitable resources but high quality ‘human’resources, and the way in which they can be combined tocreate a distinctive cultural context, are. If we accept thislogic, the most important basis for competitive advantagetherefore lies in the ability to acquire and effectively utilisehuman resources 2.

The resource-based theory has contributed to a growinginterest in how most effectively to manage humanresources. Emphasis has been placed on the concept ofstrategic integration 3, which has four central features. Thefirst is that there needs to be a HR strategy that fits with andcomplements the business strategy. This is sometimesdescribed as ‘external fit’ on the grounds that the businessstrategy is likely to be shaped in part by features of theenvironment in which the organisation operates. Thesecond element is that HRM is owned and enacted by thetop management team and the line management. Itreflects a recognition that while the HR specialists mightdevelop policies and practices, they have to be supportedand implemented on a day-to-day basis by the coremanagement of the organisation. This can therefore bedescribed as cultural fit on the grounds that the HR systemhas to be fully integrated into management practice. Thethird element of strategic integration is that the HRfunction needs to be fully integrated and contributing tomainstream organisational activity. This view has beenmost prominently advocated by Ulrich, notably in his booktitled Human Resource Champions 4. In this, he sets out fourcore roles for the function consisting of: managingstrategic human resources; managing HR infrastructures;managing employee contribution; and managingtransformation and change. More recently, Ulrich hassomewhat modified his views, but at their heart, they retainthe idea that the HR function must be a central player

rather than an administrative side-show; in other words,there must be functional fit. The fourth and final featureadvocates that HR practices should be strategicallyfocussed – this means that a range of practices should bedeployed in a way that is designed to achieve strategicgoals – and they must be fully integrated with each other.This implies that a coherent set of practices, such asselection, training, reward systems, communication and soon, should be viewed as an integrated system. In otherwords, there should be internal practices fit.

The resource-based, strategic view of human resourcesoffers a major fillip to a function that in the past has oftenbeen viewed as failing to achieve its potential. In amemorable Harvard Business Review article Skinnerdescribed the HR function in terms of “Big hat, no cattle,” 5

suggesting that it promised much, talked the talk, butdelivered very little. Similarly, Ulrich, in the introduction tohis book on Human Resource Champions, notes that “SomeHR prophets tell the HR professionals that they are doomedby their incompetence and headed for hell. I would rathertell them how to repent so that they can go to heaven” 6.Not surprisingly, this topic has been the subject of muchresearch which falls in to two broad categories. One isessentially descriptive and maps changes in practice. Theother assesses the impact of any such changes or ofvariations in practice on performance.

In the first category of research, concerned with descriptiveaccounts of changes in practice, the most authoritativeBritish source is the series of Workplace EmploymentRelations Surveys. Sponsored by a number oforganisations including the Department of Trade andIndustry (DTI) and the Economic and Social ResearchCouncil (ESRC), these large and representative surveys havetracked workplace practice for over twenty years. Theyconfirm a steady growth in the presence of HR specialists(between the 1998 and 2004 surveys, the titles hadtypically changed from personnel to HR manager) and anincreasing likelihood, even at workplace level, that therewill be a HR strategy. On the other hand, after reportingsome growth up to 1998 in the use of various widelyadvocated “progressive” HR practices, subsequent growthin their use up to 2004 has been more patchy and limited.These practices include use of psychometric tests inselection of staff, performance appraisals, extensivetraining for experienced employees, team-working,

1 Barney (1991)2 Barney, J. and Wright, P. (1998) 3 Boxall and Purcell (2003)

4 Ulrich, D. (1997) 5 Skinner, W. (1981)6 Ulrich, D. (1997)

5

problem-solving groups, extensive two-way communication,and use of attitude surveys. Indeed, if we look at a set of suchpractices, then most workplaces have some of them in place,but relatively few have a sufficient number to be able to claimthe kind of critical mass that reflects strategic integration ofpractices and which has been viewed as a key to any impacton performance 7.

There has been an extensive body of research exploring theassociation between HRM and organisational performance.Major recent reviews have identified well over a hundredsuch studies across the world 8. Most are North Americanbut a growing number are reported in mainland Europe,the UK and beyond. These reviews conclude that there is anassociation between HRM and performance. At the sametime, there is considerable controversy about whichfeatures of HRM have greatest impact, and about the causalnature of the link. Most of the studies place the emphasison the presence of a distinctive set of practices, what aresometimes rather inappropriately described as “highperformance practices”. The more of these that are present,the higher the performance, reinforcing the idea that a“strong” HR system may be what matters 9. The otherelements of strategic integration appear to have both asmaller and less consistent impact. With respect to thecausal links, most studies have been cross-sectional andtherefore cannot with confidence, establish cause andeffect; and the few that are longitudinal are equivocalabout whether it is the presence of HR practices that causeshigh performance or vice versa 10.

Most of the research on the nature and impact of HRM hasbeen conducted in the private sector. This applies almostas much to the UK as elsewhere. However there is a limitedamount of public sector work, notably in the health sector.Guest and Peccei 11 found that those NHS Trusts with veryfew HR practices in place had notably poorer performance.More recently, West et al 12 have reported an associationbetween a small set of HR practices and lower death ratesamong patients in ‘acute trusts’, typically defined in terms ofhaving an accident and emergency department and arange of types of surgery. There appears to be nocompelling reason why the findings reported in the privatesector should not generalise to other parts of the publicsector, including higher education. Nevertheless, publicsector organisations may possess distinctive features that

make it more difficult to introduce strategic HRM and moredifficult to achieve an impact on performance.

HRM in the public sector

There are some distinctive features of the public sector inthe UK that make the application of the kind of strategicHRM outlined above particularly challenging. The first isthat in certain key respects it remains highly centralised,creating certain rigidities. The most notable example ofthis is that pay and some terms and conditions are centrallydetermined either through pay review bodies or throughcentral negotiations. In either case, the government of theday can impose its imprint upon the outcome. Thegovernment or its central agencies can also influence thereward systems in use and in particular whether variouskinds of incentive payment scheme should be applied.

A second vital feature of many parts of the public sector isthe strong professional ethos, allied to values aboutprofessional autonomy. As a result, professionals of allkinds seek to assert their expertise and autonomy, wishingto apply their knowledge and skills, in line with professionalvalues and independent of administrative systems.Attempts to develop more rigorous systems of HRM or,indeed of financial control, are therefore likely to beresisted. Parts of the public sector can currently becharacterised as engaged in a struggle between amanagerial ethos and a professional ethos which, asGreenwood and Hinings 13 have argued, imply verydifferent systems of organisation and control. Thatconfrontation of competing ideologies is perhaps currentlymost apparent in the health sector but also applies to otherparts of the public sector including higher education.

A third feature of the public sector, returning more closelyto HRM, is that management emerged initially largely as anadministrative activity. Over time this has grown into anadministrative bureaucracy applying rules and systemsthat seek to promote fairness of treatment including equalopportunity policies and practices. While such systems areto be welcomed, and parts of the public sector have beenleaders in advancing fairness of treatment at work, the riskis that bureaucratic procedures can ‘clog up the arteries’ ofthe organisation, making the achievement of innovationand change more difficult.

7 Becker, B. and Huselid, M. (1998)8 Eg. Boselie, P. et al (2005); Combs, J. et al (2006)9 Bowen, D. and Ostroff, C. (2004)10 Guest, D. et al (2003); Wright et al (2005)

11 Guest, D. and Peccei, R. (1994); Guest, D. et al (2004)12 West, M. et al (2002)13 Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C. (1993)

6


HRM in universities

The distinctive features of the public sector and thechallenges facing HRM in the sector apply in extremis touniversities. Pay and terms and conditions remain centrallynegotiated, although the dispute of 2006 and the pressureson the central system imposed by the need to attract andretain key members of staff have placed this central systemunder considerable recent pressure. Professionalautonomy, reflected in the distinctive expertise of thedistinguished scholar at the leading edge of their specialistbody of knowledge, remains deeply embedded and highlyvalued. The structure of universities is distinctive, withsemi-autonomous, loosely-coupled departments, oftenhighly fragmented internally into lone scholars or smallteams with shared interests and in which management isviewed by most as a burden or interference to be avoidedand minimised where at all possible. Among manyacademics, individuality, idiosyncrasy, innovation and onoccasion, risk-taking is highly valued, whereasadministrative functions such as human resources share acommon concern for consistency, order and systems ofregulation and control that emphasise risk-avoidance.

The stylised traditional academic values outlined here havebeen under pressure for some time from governmentactions and from a creeping managerialism which hasprogressed much further in a number of the post-1992universities that retain some of the more managerialculture inherited from their polytechnic days. The emphasison the need to step down from the ivory tower and transferknowledge to the shop floor or the executive boardroomhas been welcomed by some academics, but stronglyresisted by others. Further challenges to the traditionalpicture of academic life have been presented by thegrowing importance of large faculties and schools asmanagerial entities and by the rise in inter-disciplinaryunits and large research teams engaged in ‘big science’andrequiring careful management and coordination.

In universities, HRM has traditionally been a rather minoradministrative activity. It has dealt with the administrationof recruitment and selection, with pay and some basictraining and with administration of promotion. While itmay have been involved in decisions about non-academicstaff, when it came to the recruitment, promotion andorganisation of the work of academics, its role had beenlimited to administrative oversight. This at least was theposition in many cases up to the end of the last century.

Successive governments have been concerned about therole of universities in society, their level of autonomy andthe way in which they are managed. The Dearing Report(1997) into the future of higher education was followed upwith the Bett review (1999) of pay and conditions. MichaelBett, a former personnel director and president of theChartered Institute of Personnel and Development,identified the personnel function in universities as an areaof particular weakness that merited concerted action. Theresult was an initiative from government, via Hefce,Rewarding and Developing Staff, designed to modernisepersonnel practice in universities. The distance that had tobe travelled was reflected in the priorities of the first roundof required action. The government, in line with its“something for something” philosophy, offered money touniversities if they could demonstrate progress in thedevelopment of a HR strategy and also in core areas of HRactivity including recruitment and retention, developmentand training, equal opportunities, staff planning,performance review and reward and management of poorperformance. With significant money on offer, mostuniversities swiftly developed a HR strategy and many setup units to promote equal opportunity and training, sincesuch units provided visible signs of activity.

Two years later, a second phase, Rewarding and DevelopingStaff 2 was initiated. This moved the priority areas forward,with a particular emphasis on job evaluation. Indeed, it issomewhat ironic that the university sector was encouragedto introduce job evaluation just at the time that many othersectors, where it had been in place for several decades, werebecoming concerned about the rigidities that it could create.Other areas that attracted priority were performanceappraisal, flexible rewards, rewarding teaching excellence,development of young staff and those on fixed-termcontracts and support for part-time staff. More money wason offer for a limited period to encourage and facilitate theintroduction of these practices and this funding could bemainstreamed if universities undertook benchmarking tomonitor practice standards.

There was some evaluation by consultants of the first phaseof Rewarding and Developing Staff and it was concludedthat good progress had been made in all the areas to whichpriority had been given, with the exception in some casesof the management of poor performance. A fullersubsequent evaluation reported by Archer 14 confirmedconsiderable progress in the development of HR strategy

14 Archer, W. (2005)

7

and practices but raised questions about theirimplementation. It is timely again, five years after theintroduction of this initiative, to review the progress thatuniversities have made, to explore how far they have beenable to introduce contemporary HRM and whether this ishaving any discernible impact on university performance.In broad terms, this is what the study reported below setout to do.

Aims of the study

The aims of the study are to:

• Explore the current application of HRM amonguniversities in the UK

• Assess the extent to which HRM is viewed primarily as astrategic or administrative activity and the implicationsof this

• Examine the influences on the focus of, and prioritygiven to, HRM and in particular the role of institutionalleadership

• Assess the association between HRM and a range ofperformance indicators in universities

It should be emphasised that this is a modest initial study ofa number of complex issues. Ideally it needs to becomplemented by more detailed survey and case studyinformation. However it has set out to provide apreliminary mapping of some core aspects of current HRMin universities together with an initial assessment of theirlink to some established indicators of universityperformance.

Methods and sample

Two main research methods were used. In the first stage,working in collaboration with the Universities PersonnelAssociation (UPA), a number of interviews were conducted.These were mainly with university HR directors and weredesigned to identify issues and concerns for inclusion in aquestionnaire survey. These were followed up with a focusgroup involving a further cross-section of university HRdirectors to review the draft content of a questionnaire, tocomment on wording and to identify topics for addition orexclusion. The second step was then to distribute aquestionnaire to all university HR directors who belongedto the UPA, using the UPA mailing system. This meant that141 out of the 172 universities listed in Higher EducationStatistics Agency (HESA) records in the UK were covered(note that HESA records include institutions that have only

central functions for a number of other universities, e.g.University of Wales).

The survey was sent out in May 2006, with a follow-upreminder a few weeks later. In total, 65 questionnaires werereturned, of which 63 were usable (two respondents didnot identify for which university they worked). Thus aresponse rate of 46 per cent was achieved. The final samplerepresents just over 41 per cent of the universities in GreatBritain. It included responses from 24 “old” universities(38% of the total), 27 “new” universities (43% of the total)and 12 (19% of the total) that we have classified as “verynew”on the grounds that they received their charter withinthe last ten years.

The questionnaire consisted of a mix of items developedespecially for this study and others drawn from previousstudies of HRM in other contexts. There were a number ofsections covering:

• Background information about the respondent, theiruniversity and their location in the managementsystem

• The HR department and the key challenges it faces andrecent initiatives it has taken

• The operational environment and sources ofuncertainty

• HR strategies, policies and practices

• The effectiveness of HR policies and practices

• Leadership support for HRM

• Assessments of the quality of university staff and ofuniversity performance

Please see the appendix for a copy of the questionnaireused (page 45).

Once these data had been analysed, they were linked,mainly through correlation analysis, with data obtainedfrom HESA and other sources on university performance.

The analytic framework that informs the study

This study was informed by previous research, by aconsideration of the distinctive features of the universitysetting and by the information collected in the first phaseinterviews. We also worked within an analytic frameworkdesigned to ensure that key topics were covered. In doingso, we started with some initial assumptions about possiblelinkages between aspects of university organisation, HR

8


ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK

FIGURE 1

Human Resource Function

University

Uncertainties

PressuresEffectiveness

of HR Dept

HR Strategy

HR Structure

HR Priorities

HR Practices

Effectiveness of Practices

Staff Performance

UniversityPerformance

policy and practice and university performance. These areset out in Figure 1.

This preliminary analytic model assumes that the HRstrategy, priorities and practices will be determined by thedistinctive characteristics of the university, by the centralityof the HR function and by uncertainties and pressures from

the environment. The way in which the HR functionresponds will help to shape perceptions of its effectivenessand of the effectiveness of the HR practices in achievingtheir presumed aims. These in turn might have an impacton staff performance which in turn affects the performanceof the university as a whole. One of the aims of the study isto explore how far the evidence supports these links.

9

HR DEPARTMENTAL STRUCTURE BY UNIVERSITY TYPE AND SIZE

TABLE 1

FINDINGS

In this section we explore the size, structure and location ofthe HR departments within the universities examined andalso present some information about the background of theHR directors.

The size of university HR departments

The average number of HR specialists, as opposed to clericaland administrative staff, working in HRM and closely relatedareas such as training and development is 14.5, with a rangefrom 1.6 to 70. This is clearly going to be influenced by thesize of the university, so a more useful indicator is theproportion of HR specialists to total university staff. Theaverage ratio is 1:181, though this ranges from 1:59 to 1:470.The ratio is strongly and positively related to size ofUniversity (0.62***), suggesting that larger universities havea proportionately smaller number of HR specialists.Differences are also found across university types, withproportionately fewer HR specialists found at olduniversities (1:222) compared with new universities (1:170)or very new universities (1:123).

The structure of university HR departments

In the management literature, there has been muchdiscussion about the decentralisation and outsourcing of

what have traditionally been described as “central”functions. HRM falls within this category. In the preliminaryinterviews and discussions, three dominant types ofstructure had been identified, although it was recognisedthat there might also be hybrids. In the questionnaire weasked about these. The results reveal that:

• 52 per cent are mainly centralised but with nominatedlinks to specific colleges, faculties or schools.

• 21 per cent are mainly centralised and organised aroundfunctional groups such as selection, training and equalopportunities.

• 11 per cent have a small strategic and advisory core withthe rest decentralised to colleges, faculties or schools.

• 11 per cent have a mix of the two mainly centralisedarrangements.

• 5 per cent report a mix of some centralised functionalgroups and the rest decentralised.

We explored the possibility that the type of HR departmentstructure might be affected by the type and size ofuniversity. The results are shown in Table 1.

1. Mainlycentralised

but with nominated links

2. Mainly centralised and organised

around functionalgroups

3. Small centralstrategic & advisory

core; restdecentralised

Mixture of 1 & 2

Mixture of 2 & 3

University Type

Old

New

Very new

11

15

7

6

3

4

5

2

0

2

5

0

0

2

1

University Size

Mean no. of FTEs

SD

n

2398.0

1966.6

33

1498.6

838.7

13

4950.4

2799.3

7

3808.0

2560.2

7

1500.0

353.6

2

10


A Chi-squared test reveals no significant differences in HRdepartment structure according to type of university.However, it is interesting to note that the new universitieshave a much greater proportion of ‘hybrid’ structures thaneither old or very new universities. Also, the very newuniversities appear more likely to opt for centralised systems.

University size appears to be more important in explainingHR department structures. Using the number of FTE staff asthe indicator of size, some significant differences are found.As we might expect, larger universities are more likely tohave a small central strategic and advisory core with theremainder of the HR function decentralised. In contrast,smaller universities are more likely to have centralised HRdepartments organised around functional groups.

There is no “right” way to organise an HR department. Thekey seems to be to ensure it is sufficiently close to those whohave to apply or make use of HR resources and systems. Forlarge universities, this may be more challenging if thefunction is predominantly centralised.

Membership of Top Management Team

The HR director’s membership of the top managementteam may be an important factor in determining the extentto which HR issues are given appropriate strategicconsideration and receive the endorsement of key sponsors.

The results show that nearly 56 per cent of HR directors saidthey were members of the top management team. Thisteam typically consisted of ten people although this variesbetween three and 22. HR directors are significantly morelikely to belong to the top management team if it is largerand if they have been an HR director for longer 15. There wasno significant association with university type or size.Although evidence from elsewhere indicates that HRdirectors may not belong to the main board, in much ofboth the public and private sectors they are likely to be partof the top executive team. The relatively low proportion

belonging to the top management team in universities,provides a first indication that the function may be lessdeveloped in universities than in many other sectors.

Reporting arrangements

35 per cent of the HR directors said they report to the senioradministrator or university secretary, a third report directlyto the vice-chancellor or equivalent and 29 per cent to apro-vice chancellor. Reporting to the senior administratoror university secretary was most frequent in old universities(54%). Reporting to the vice-chancellor or equivalent wasmore likely if their job title was HR director or similar, ratherthan Personnel director or similar (40 versus 7%). It was alsomore likely if the HR director was a member of the topmanagement team (49 versus 14%).

Job titles and experience

Almost three-quarters of those completing the survey havethe title of HR director or very similar, with the remaindercontinuing to be described as Personnel directors or similar.Average job tenure in the present job is five years, rangingbetween four months and 24 years with tenure in thecurrent university being almost two and a half years longer,averaging 7.4 years. On average, 43 per cent of HR directors’careers have been spent in higher education, 35 per cent inother parts of the public sector and 22 per cent in theprivate sector. Looking at the data another way, 44 per centof the respondents have spent some time working in theprivate sector (for 22%, more than half of their career), 75per cent of respondents have spent time working in otherparts of the public sector (for 37%, more than half of theircareer) and 40 per cent of the respondents have spent themajority of their career in higher education. No link wasfound between experience of working in sectors and anyother respondent characteristics.

Details of the descriptive information provided above issummarised in Table 2.

15 The key comparison with respect to size of the top management team is between 8, when the HR director is significantly less likely to

belong compared with 12 when they are more likely to belong (t = 4.07, p<.001). For time in job, those with three years or less in the

job are significantly less likely to be part of the top management team than those with 5.8 or more years in the job (t=2.26, p<.05).

11

RESPONDENT, HR STRUCTURE AND UNIVERSITY INFORMATION

TABLE 2

Respondent Information

Job Title n %

HR Director or similar 47 74.6

Personnel Director or Similar 15 23.8

Who do you report to? n %

Vice Chancellor or Principal 21 33.3

Pro Vice Chancellor 18 28.6

Administrator or Secretary 22 34.9

Top management team n %

Member of top management team 35 55.6

Min Max Mean SD

Size top management team 3 22 10.1 4.6

Career history Min Max Mean SD

Job tenure (years) 0.3 24.0 5.0 4.6

University tenure (years) 0.5 32.0 7.4 7.5

% Career in university sector 2.0 100.0 42.7 29.1

% Career in public sector 0.0 98.0 34.9 31.4

% Career in private sector 0.0 98.0 22.1 31.2

HR department structure n %

1. Mainly centralised but with nominated links 33 52.4

2. Mainly centralised and organised around functional groups 13 20.6

3. Small central strategic and advisory core; rest decentralised 7 11.1

Mixture of 1 & 2 7 11.1

Mixture of 2 & 3 3 4.8

University n %

Old 24 38.1

New 27 42.9

Very new 12 19.0

Min Max Mean SD

No. of employees in university (FTEs) 155.4 10000.0 2627.8 2169.3

No. of HR specialists 1.6 70.0 14.5 11.3

Ratio HR specialists:FTEs 1:59 1:470 1:181 92.8

12


In this section, we explore responses to two questions, oneaddressing the wider context in which the universityoperates and the other concerning the key challengesfacing the HR department. These data were collectedthrough a mix of open and closed questions.

The operational environment

An open-ended question asked respondents about thethree main sources of uncertainty facing the university.Responses were categorised and coded and are presentedin Table 3. Each category of ‘source of uncertainty’ ispresented along with the number of times it was reportedas either the first, second or third source. The percentage ofrespondents reporting each is also provided.

Much the largest category of response concerned fundingand student numbers. Indeed, some managers providedmore than one response within this category. It is alsolinked to the second category identified, the impact ofstudent fees and the third, concerned with changing costs.In short, the main challenges for these HR directors are all

essentially financial and concern income generation. Thesecond order set of factors concern organisational change,the short-term issue of the industrial dispute and any knockon effects and the Research Assessment Exercise. Therelative frequency with which each factor was mentionedas a source of uncertainty is summarised in Figure 1.

Perceptions of environmental uncertainty were alsomeasured using a scale developed by Milliken (1987). Threeaspects of environmental uncertainty are measured: stateuncertainty, effect uncertainty and response uncertainty.State uncertainty refers to uncertainty regarding howcomponents within the environment might be changingand a perceived inability to predict such change (see firstitem in Table 4). Effect uncertainty refers to a perceived abilityto predict what the impact of environmental events orchanges will be on one’s organisation (see second item).Response uncertainty refers to a lack of knowledge of response options and/or a perceived inability to predictthe likely consequences of a response choice (see third item).

First source Second source Third source

n % n % n %

Funding/Income/Student 40 63.5 20 31.7 13 20.6numbers

Changing costs 5 7.9 4 6.3 3 4.8

Industrial action outcome 4 6.3 2 3.2 9 14.3

RAE 1 1.6 9 14.3 4 6.3

Organisational change 5 7.9 7 11.1 12 19.0

Impact of student fees 8 12.7 5 7.9 0 0.0

Effect of competition 0 0.0 3 4.8 3 4.8

Future of dept/programme 0 0.0 2 3.2 2 3.2

Success of Policy/Initiative 0 0.0 3 4.8 3 4.8

Securing quality appointments 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 6.3

Miscellaneous 0 0.0 6 9.5 2 3.2

REPORTS OF THREE MAJOR SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY FACING THE UNIVERSITY

TABLE 3

THE CONTEXT WITHIN WHICH UNIVERSITY HR DEPARTMENTS OPERATE:

UNCERTAINTIES AND CHALLENGES

13

MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY FACING UNIVERSITY

FIGURE 1

ENVIRONMENTAL UNCERTAINTY

TABLE 4

% % % % % Mean SD Not at all A small A fair A lot Completely

amount amount

2.83 0.99 2 31 61 6 0

2.95 0.94 2 18 74 6 0

3.44 1.06 2 10 45 39 5

To what extent is theenvironment within whichthis university is operatingpredictable?

To what extent is it possibleto predict how anyenvironmental changes willimpact upon this university?

To what extent are youconfident in the actions thisuniversity plans to take inresponse to the changes in the environment?

Funding/Income/Student numbers

Organisational change

Industrial action outcome

RAE

Impact on student fees

Changing costs

Misc

Success of Policy/Initiative

Effect of competition

Securing quality appointments

Future of dept/programme

0 20 40 60 100

% citing source of uncertainty

80

14


The response format was on a 5-point scale from ‘not at all’ to ‘completely’. Therefore lower values indicategreater uncertainty.

The items load onto a single factor and the Cronbach alpha ofthe three-item scale is 0.90. Therefore the three items seem towork well as a scale. A combined measure was produced andreversed, so that higher values indicated higher levels ofenvironmental uncertainty. The mean score on this combinedmeasure was 3.02 (SD=0.51), indicating that overallrespondents were suggesting there to be ‘a fair amount’ ofenvironmental uncertainty. Moreover, the relatively lowstandard deviation suggests only a small amount of variationin responses across the sample of managers. As we mightexpect, there is a higher level of uncertainty about theexternal environment than about the ability of the universityto respond to changes in that environment.

The major HR problems facing the university

An open-ended question asked the HR directors to identifywhat they considered to be the main HR problemscurrently facing their university. The analysis of theirresponses is shown in Table 5, which indicates the numberof times each item was cited as the first, second or thirdproblem, these results are integrated in Figure 2.

This question attracted a wide range of responses. The twomost frequently cited items were the factors associatedwith the industrial dispute, which was in full swing at thetime, and leadership. Only two other categories were citedby more than 20 per cent of respondents. These wereconcerns about reduced finance and resources for HRactivities and a range of concerns about employeeattitudes and well-being. Leadership within universities isan issue we return to later in the report.

REPORTS OF THREE MAJOR HR PROBLEMS FACING THE UNIVERSITY

TABLE 5

First problem Second problem Third problem

n % n % n %

Leadership 7 11.1 8 12.7 9 14.3

National framework agreement (NFA) 4 6.3 3 4.8 3 4.8

Trade union relations/Industrial 10 15.9 9 14.3 5 7.9action/Knock-on

Reduced finance/resources 9 14.3 2 3.2 5 7.9

High costs 5 7.9 4 6.3 1 1.6

Performance issues 7 11.1 4 6.3 0 0.0

Employee attitudes/well-being/ 5 7.9 4 6.3 5 7.9resistance

HR Function issues 0 0.0 2 3.2 3 4.8

Recruitment issues 2 3.2 1 1.6 3 4.8

Management of change 2 3.2 3 4.8 6 9.5

Retention issues 1 1.6 2 3.2 1 1.6

Succession/Career management 1 1.6 2 3.2 2 3.2

Pay & Reward 3 4.8 3 4.8 1 1.6

Equality/Diversity 2 3.2 1 1.6 2 3.2

Legislation/Fixed-term workers 0 0.0 4 6.3 0 0.0

Communication/Information 0 0.0 3 4.8 0 0.0

Multi-site difficulties 1 1.6 2 3.2 0 0.0

Miscellaneous 3 4.8 5 7.9 11 17.5

Total 62 98.4 62 98.4 57 90.5

15

Major HR challenges faced in the past year

A related open-ended question asked about the major HRchallenges faced in the past year and gave space for up tothree responses. Once again, this elicited a wide variety ofresponses. These are shown in Table 6 and Figure 3. AsFigure 3 indicates, four sets of items were mentioned morefrequently than others. The first concerns the introductionof job evaluation and the national framework agreementand their related pay issues which was one of the HRchallenges mentioned by almost half the respondents. Thesecond was management of re-structuring and changeand, in some cases, associated redundancies. The third wasindustrial relations and factors associated with the dispute.There was also a large category of miscellaneous factors.

HR strategy

Under Hefce’s Rewarding and Developing Staff initiative, alluniversities were expected to develop a HR strategy as abasis for receiving tied funding. The presence of a writtenstrategy does not, of course, guarantee an effective strategy.A set of five questions, drawn from previous research on thistopic in other sectors, therefore explored perceptions of HRstrategy in more detail. The results are shown in Table 8. Itshould be borne in mind that these responses are providedby HR directors and it would be useful to be able to comparethem with the views of other senior managers. However inprevious research in the private sector, the responses of HRdirectors and managing directors on questions about HRstrategy have been fairly similar.

MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED HR PROBLEMS FACING UNIVERSITY

FIGURE 2

TU Relations/Industrial action/Knock-on

Leadership

Miscellaneous

Finance/resources

Employee attitudes/well being/resistance

Management of change

Performance issues

High costs

NFA

Pay & Reward

Recruitment issues

Equality/Diversity

Succession/Career management

HR Function issues

Legislation/Fixed-term workers

Retention issues

Multi-site difficulties

Communication/Information

0 10 20

% citing problem

30 40

16


Job evaluation/pay review/NFA

Redundancy/restructuring/change

Miscellaneous

TU relations/Industrial dispute

Case work

Performance management

Modernising HR systems

Reward management

Management development

Legislation change/Fixed-term

Diversity/Equal opportunities

IIP

Senior management support

0 20 40 60 80

% citing past challenge

MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED HR CHALLENGES FACED IN PAST YEAR

FIGURE 3

REPORTS OF THREE MOST DIFFICULT HR CHALLENGES FACED IN PAST YEAR

TABLE 6

First challenge Second challenge Third challenge

n % n % n %

Job evaluation/pay review/NFA 31 49.2 10 15.9 4 6.3

Legislation change/ 2 3.2 1 1.6 2 3.2Fixed-term workers

Redundancy/restructuring/Change 7 11.1 13 20.6 10 15.9

Reward management 5 7.9 0 0.0 2 3.2

Trade union relations/ 5 7.9 11 17.5 9 14.3Industrial dispute

Case work 1 1.6 5 7.9 5 7.9

Modernising HR systems 1 1.6 3 4.8 3 4.8

Performance management 3 4.8 2 3.2 5 7.9

Miscellaneous 5 7.9 11 17.5 12 19.0

Diversity/Equal opportunities 1 1.6 3 4.8 1 1.6

Senior management support 2 3.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Management development 0 0.0 2 3.2 3 4.8(required)

Investors in People 0 0.0 2 3.2 2 3.2

Total 63 100.0 63 100.0 58 92.1

17

The responses concerning strategy are generally positive.There is strong agreement that there is a clearly articulatedstrategy and that HR policies and practices are integrated intothe wider university strategy. HR directors are a little lesspositive about the level of active support for the HR strategyfrom the top management team and only mildly positiveabout the extent to which it is communicated to those linemanagers who have to implement it on a day-to-day basis.However only a small minority express clearly negative viewsabout any of these items. Finally, the HR directors areconvinced that they do not lead a department that isprimarily administrative. Given the history of the HR function,

this would be an item on which it would be particularlyinteresting to know the views of line managers in universities.

Factor analysis was carried out on the five items. The lastitem regarding the HR role as an essentially administrativefunction loads to a lesser degree than the other four items.Indeed, the Cronbach’s alpha rises from 0.48 to 0.84 whenthis item is removed. Therefore only the first four items wereused to compute the variable representing HR strategy. Themean for this variable was 3.93 (SD=0.75), indicating thatoverall respondents broadly agreed with these statements.The strategy scale is used in some of the later analyses.

This university has a clearlyarticulated human resourcestrategy

The human resource strategy isactively supported by the topmanagement team

HR policies and practices aredeliberately integrated with,and support the wider strategyof the university

The human resource strategy isformally communicated to, anddiscussed with those linemanagers who have toimplement related policy andpractice on a day-to-day basis

The role of the HR department isessentially that of anadministrative function (R).

Mean

4.25

3.84

4.17

3.48

1.79

SD

0.86

0.94

0.89

0.98

1.06

%Strongly

Disagree

2

2

2

3

54

%Somewhat

Disagree

3

8

5

11

24

%Partly Agree,

Partly Disagree

8

19

8

35

14

%Somewhat

Agree

43

48

46

37

5

%Strongly

Agree

44

24

40

14

3

HR STRATEGY

TABLE 8

18


UNIVERSITY LEADERSHIP AND HRM

The development and implementation of an effective HRstrategy will depend to a considerable extent on theleadership provided by the vice-chancellor and the topmanagement team. When it comes to the implementation ofthe strategy and associated policies and practices, the role ofother senior, middle and more junior managers is alsoimportant. A series of questions asked for HR directors’perceptions of the effectiveness of the leadership provided byuniversity managers at these four different levels, firstly indeveloping HR strategy and secondly in application orimplementation of HR policy and practice. The responses areshown in Table 9.

The responses summarised in Table 9 were given on a five-point scale from ‘not at all effective’(1) to ‘highly effective’(5).We might expect the more senior managers to have agreater role in strategy formulation and the results confirmthat HR directors believe this is indeed the case. Howeveraverage scores of 3.77 and 3.40 fall somewhere between‘somewhat effective’ and fairly effective’, so they are not anenthusiastic endorsement of the top management role in HR

strategy development. With respect to implementation ofHR policy and practice, the responses are a little morepositive, more particularly with respect to the middle andjunior managers. Nevertheless there is still a clear cascadedownwards in terms of the perceived effectiveness ofleadership. The vice-chancellor is seen as most effective withregard to HR issues, then the top management team,followed by senior faculty management and finally heads ofdepartments. Indeed, for heads of departments, averageratings for effectiveness of leadership in implementing HRpolicy and practice is just above the mid-point on the scale,suggesting that they are perceived by HR directors as littlemore than ‘somewhat effective’.

Some exploratory factor analyses were carried out to examinethe possibility of using these items as a scale. Analysessuggested two scales, one for the first four items, representingvice-chancellor and top management effectiveness, and onefor the second four items, representing the effectiveness of thesenior and middle management. Both scales proved reliable(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88 and 0.74 respectively) and are used inthe later bivariate and multivariate analyses to determinefactors associated with performance 16.

i) Development

ii) Application

3.77 0.97 0 10 31 32 273.82 0.90 0 8 26 42 24

% % % % %Not at all Not very Somewhat Fairly Highly

Mean SD effective effective effective effective effective

3.40 0.93 3 11 37 39 103.42 0.82 2 11 35 47 5

3.16 0.77 2 15 53 27 33.27 0.68 0 10 56 31 3

2.76 0.74 3 32 50 15 03.15 0.65 0 13 61 24 2

The vice-chancellor (or equivalent)

i) Development

ii) Application

The majority of othermembers of the topmanagement team

i) Development

ii) Application

The majority of othersenior management(Heads of faculties/schools/functions)

i) Development

ii) Application

The majority of middleand junior management(Heads of departments/sections)

EFFECTIVENESS OF LEADERSHIP IN HR DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION

TABLE 9

16 In addition, further factor analyses were carried out to see if there was any justification for using the ‘strategy development’ and ‘policy and practice application’ items as separate scales.

Mixed results were found. A single factor solution was supported by the data for ‘development’, however two factors were found for the ‘application’ items, distinguishing between the top

management and middle management levels. The ‘development’ scale was found to be adequately reliable (alpha=0.76), while the ‘application’ scale was very close to the acceptable 0.70

threshold (alpha=0.69). However the first two factors distinguishing the levels of management have more convincing statistical properties so we used them in the subsequent analyses.

19

HR leadership and university characteristics

The relationships between the effectiveness of universityleadership in the management of HR and university size, typeand top management team membership were examined.Data are presented in Table 10. No correlation was foundbetween size of university and HR directors’ ratings of theeffectiveness of top management. There is a low negativerelationship between size of university and effectiveness ofmiddle management but it is not significant. Therefore theredoes not appear to be a relationship between university sizeand effective leadership of HRM.

No significant difference was found with regard tomembership of the top management team and effectiveleadership either. Two t-tests indicate that effectiveness is notrated differently whether the respondent was or was not partof the top management team.

Significant differences were found with regard to universitytype 17. Looking at the results, it appears that new universitiesstand out, with effectiveness of top management in particularbut also middle management being rated significantly morehighly by the HR directors. Ratings of middle managers in theold universities are notably lower than in the other twocategories of university.

We should bear in mind that these are the perceptions of theHR directors. It would be interesting to compare them with theresponses of the managers whose effectiveness in dealing withHR issues has been rated. What these responses do provide issome indication of perceived support from the managementof the university for the management of human resources.

Top Management Middle Management

Mean SD Mean SD

University Type

Old 3.40 0.90 2.91 0.41New 3.91 0.69 3.21 0.62Very new 3.31 0.47 3.13 0.51

Member of top management team

No 3.42 0.88 3.12 0.53Yes 3.76 0.66 3.06 0.55

University size and leadership

HR effectiveness

Pearson's r -0.01 -0.15

EFFECTIVENESS OF LEVELS OF LEADERSHIP HRM AND UNIVERSITY CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 10

17 MANOVA, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.847, p=0.046

20


HR POLICIES & PRACTICES IN PLACE

This section presents the reports of the policies and practicescurrently in place in the universities or those that are planned.It then presents assessments of their effectiveness. Thesepolicies and practices relate to academic staff. It is recognisedthat there are other important groups of staff in theuniversities but to obtain a standard point of reference wefollowed the practices in the national Workplace EmploymentRelations Survey 18 and asked about the practices applied tothis, the largest occupational group in the organisation.

The list of practices was derived partly from previoussurveys conducted in other sectors and partly frominformation gathered during the initial set of interviews andfrom focus group activity.

HR policies & practices for academic staff

Each respondent was asked whether a number of HRpolicies and practices were in place for academic staff.Response options were ‘no’, ‘thinking about introducing’, ‘inthe process of implementing’, and ‘yes’. Percentageresponses are given in Table 11.

The most commonly reported practices refer to formaltraining on how to teach for staff in their first post (91 percent), regular staff appraisals (75 per cent) andcomputerised HR systems (67 per cent). At the otherextreme, only 13 per cent offer guaranteed job security andonly 18 per cent engage in succession planning activities. Alarge number of practices are in the process of beingintroduced, the most frequently cited being job evaluation(43 per cent), systematic monitoring of equal opportunities(41 per cent) and integrated HR policies and practices thatsupport each other (43 per cent). The one practice that aconsiderable number of respondents were thinking ofimplementing was succession planning.

A count of the practices currently implemented and fully inplace was computed to give an indication of the breadth ofthe current HR system. A measure of this type hassometimes been used in research linking HRM andorganisational performance. This reveals that on average8.24 or just over half of the 16 practices are in place. Afurther measure was constructed to take account of thepractices that are in the process of being implemented. Thistook the sum of items where ‘no’ = 0, ‘thinking about

introducing’ = 1, ‘in the process of implementing’ = 2, and‘yes’ = 3. Thus a score ranging between 0 and 48 for eachuniversity was computed indicating the ‘direction’ in whichthe HR system was heading in terms of coverage. The meanfor this measure was almost 34 with a standard deviation ofabove 6.

Because the question asked about practices that applied toacademic staff, an additional question asked about thepractice on which there is the greatest difference comparedto other categories of university staff. Twenty of the 63respondents did not answer this question. Twenty-tworespondents indicated that internal promotion was an area ofdifference, 15 indicated that formal training in teaching wasanother and nine indicated that flexible pay was another.

Initiatives that HR Directors would like to introduce

The list of practices suggests that many are in the process ofimplementation. We took this one step further by askingabout the practices that the HR directors would most like tointroduce because they would be likely to have a positiveimpact on the performance of the university and its staff.This was an open-ended question and once again, up tothree initiatives could be listed. The responses are shown inTable 12 and summarised in Figure 4.

As Table 12 indicates, much the most frequently cited firstinitiative concerns performance management, withleadership development the only other first initiative toattract more than ten per cent of the responses. When welook across the three potential initiatives, six items stand outas cited by more than 20 per cent. In addition toperformance management and leadership, these aremodernising HR systems, reward management, staffdevelopment and career/succession management. Againthere is a large miscellaneous category.

There is much discussion of performance managementwithin the university context. It is not entirely clear what thismeans in practice. Performance appraisal lies at the heart ofperformance management and, at least with respect toacademic staff, most universities have a system in place. Itmay be the goal setting associated with appraisal, processesof feedback, coaching and development or some aspect ofthe reward systems that is the intended focus. Howevermore detailed research is needed to establish where theintended focus lies.

18 Kersley, B. et al (2006)

21

(0) (1) (2) (3)

Thinking In the

about process of

No introducing implementing Yes

% % % %

Formal training in how to teach for all staff appointed 1.6 0.0 7.9 90.5to their first post

Regular appraisal of all staff 0.0 4.8 20.6 74.6

Computerised systems to ensure high quality, 3.2 4.8 23.8 66.7up-to-date HR information

Support with non-work responsibilities – e.g. child care 4.8 14.3 19.0 61.9facilities, flexible hours, financial planning, legal services, etc.

Internal promotion for all who merit it 22.2 11.1 4.8 60.3

Formal system of communicating the strategic priorities 11.1 11.1 22.2 55.6of the university to all staff

Job evaluation 3.2 0.0 42.9 54.0

Systematic monitoring of equal opportunities practices 1.6 3.2 41.3 54.0

All staff systematically informed about the performance 25.4 7.9 14.3 52.4of the university

Training for all newly appointed heads of departments 6.3 11.1 31.7 50.8

HR policies and practices that are deliberately integrated 4.8 4.8 42.9 47.6so that one supports and complements another

Training for the top tier of university leadership 15.9 15.9 22.2 46.0

Flexible pay to attract and retain staff 19.0 11.1 30.2 39.7

Regular attitude surveys 25.4 14.3 20.6 39.7

Retirement/succession/replacement planning 11.1 38.1 33.3 17.5

Guaranteed job security 81.0 1.6 0.0 12.7

Mean SD

Average number of practices in place 8.24 3.25

Average count using 1 – 4 scale 33.73 6.43

HR PRACTICES IN PLACE FOR ACADEMIC STAFF

TABLE 11

22


First initiative Second initiative Third initiative

n % n % n %

Review of strategy/policy 2 3.2 0 0.0 1 1.6


Staff development 3 4.8 7 11.1 3 4.8

Leadership development 9 14.3 8 12.7 8 12.7


Communications 3 4.8 3 4.8 1 1.6

Staff surveys 2 3.2 2 3.2 1 1.6

Career/Succession management 2 3.2 7 11.1 4 6.3


Flexible working/WLB 2 3.2 2 3.2 2 3.2

Workforce planning 1 1.6 0 0.0 2 3.2

Competency frameworks 1 1.6 0 0.0 2 3.2

Organisational development 2 3.2 1 1.6 1 1.6

Well-being/Positive culture 2 3.2 2 3.2 1 1.6

Diversity 0 0.0 2 3.2 2 3.2

Absence management 1 1.6 2 3.2 1 1.6

Redundancy policy 0 0.0 2 3.2 1 1.6

Miscellaneous 6 9.5 10 15.9 11 17.5

Total 63 100.0 63 100.0 59 93.7

REPORTS OF THREE HR INITIATIVES WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE

TABLE 12

23

Effectiveness of HR policies & practices

Respondents were then asked to rate the effectiveness of the various HR practices. The response options were on a5-point scale from ‘not at all effective’ (1) to ‘highly effective’(5). The average responses to each item are presented inTable 13.

According to the HR directors, the most effective practicesare the two dealing with recruitment and retention. They arethe only practices with overall average ratings above 4.00.Beyond those two practices, the most highly rated are jobevaluation and the ability to attract and retain top qualitystaff. The least effective practices are performancemanagement, managing poor performance and

staff/succession planning. All three fell below the mid-pointof the scale indicating that they are rated somewherebetween ‘not very effective’and ‘somewhat effective’. Theseresults, highlighting perceptions that current performancemanagement is not very effective, help to explain why thishas been identified as a key area for improvement.

A mean score across the items was also computed afterconfirming that the internal consistency of the items washigh (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87). Average level of effectivenessof HR practices is found to be 3.36 (SD=0.41) on the scale ofone to five, indicating that ratings overall were above themid-point, between ‘somewhat’and ‘fairly’effective.

MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED HR INITIATIVES THAT WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE

FIGURE 4

Performance Management

Miscellaneous

Leadership Development

Modernising HR Systems

Reward Management

Staff Development

Career/Succession Management

Communications

Flexible Working/WLB

Well-Being/Positive Culture

Staff Surveys

Absence Management

Diversity

Organisational Development

Redundancy Policy

Competency Frameworks

Workforce Planning

Review of Strategy/Policy

0 20 40

% citing each initiative

60

24


Effectiveness of HR department

Respondents were also asked about their views on theeffectiveness of the HR department in relation to a numberof criteria listed in Table 14. Response options again were ona 5-point scale from ‘not at all effective’ (1) to ‘highlyeffective’ (5). Means and standard deviations are presentedin Table 14. It would be helpful in addition to have theratings of other university managers who serve as key‘customers’ of HR Departments. However previous studiesindicate that HR managers are likely to be at least as criticalof their department’s effectiveness as other managers.

The results in Table 14 indicate that HR directors rate theirdepartments most effective at providing useful informationto managers and to staff and working with trade unions.These are the three items on which the average ratings areabove 4.00. The activities on which the departments arerated least effective concern developing creativity andinnovation, minimising bureaucracy and overcomingresistance to change. However, even on these issues theaverage scores are above 3.00 and therefore better than‘somewhat effective’.

Mean SD

General recruitment and selection 4.11 0.54

General retention of staff 4.10 0.67

Job evaluation 3.89 0.78

Ability to attract top quality staff 3.87 0.63

Ability to retain top quality staff 3.79 0.63

Diversity/equal opportunity 3.57 0.73

General training and development 3.56 0.80

Managing flexible employment 3.52 0.78

Discipline 3.52 0.74

The design of job content 3.40 0.84

Reward systems 3.23 0.89

Academic leadership training and development 3.17 0.96

Processes of employee involvement 3.16 0.73

University leadership training and development 3.16 1.12

Appraisal 3.16 0.87

Two-way communication 3.10 0.72

Attendance/absence 3.06 0.88

Managing poor performance 2.68 0.80

Staff planning/succession planning 2.56 0.78

Performance management 2.50 0.80

EFFECTIVENESS OF HR PRACTICES

TABLE 13

25

A mean score across all of the items was also computed afterconfirming that the internal consistency of the items was high(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86). The average level of effectivenessof HR department activities is 3.77 (SD=0.43) on the scale ofone to five, indicating that ratings overall are above the mid-point, between ‘somewhat’and ‘fairly’effective. This impliesthat the HR directors rate the effectiveness of theirdepartment’s activities, over which they presumably havesignificant control, more highly than they rate theeffectiveness of the HR practices, which often have to beimplemented on a day-to-day basis by line managers.

Respondents were also asked two further questions on thistopic. Firstly they were asked how confident they were thatthe vice-chancellor would provide similar ratings of HRdepartment effectiveness on a five-point range from ‘not atall confident’ to ‘very confident’. Mean response was 3.79

(SD=0.63), suggesting that respondents were reasonablyconfident that the vice-chancellor would provide similarratings. Secondly respondents were asked the extent towhich they were confident that the majority of othermembers of the top management team would providesimilar ratings of HR department effectiveness on the samescale. The mean score here was 3.59 (SD=0.59), suggestingslightly lower confidence than for vice-chancellors, but stillsuggesting that respondents were between ‘somewhat’and‘fairly’ confident that other members of the topmanagement team would provide similar ratings of theeffectiveness of university HR departments.

HR initiatives to have most positive impact

The final question addressing the effectiveness of HRMasked the HR directors to identify three major HR initiativesduring the past three years that have had the most positive

Mean SD

Providing useful advice to managers 4.46 0.59

Providing advice and help to staff 4.22 0.58

Working with trade unions 4.13 0.80

Progressing HR projects and initiatives 3.98 0.66

Speed of response to requests from managers 3.97 0.74

Explaining personnel policies and procedures 3.94 0.74

Contributing to the performance of the university 3.84 0.57

Maintaining up-to-date HR information 3.78 0.94

Initiating and pursuing new ideas 3.68 0.76

Managing or fostering organisational change 3.57 0.82

Ensuring quality of application of HR practices at the local level 3.52 0.72

Overcoming resistance to change 3.35 0.87

Managing/minimising bureaucracy 3.21 0.81

Developing creativity and innovation 3.13 0.76

How confident are you that the vice chancellor would provide similar ratings? 3.79 0.63

What about the majority of other members of the top management team? 3.59 0.59

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE HR DEPARTMENT

TABLE 14

26


impact on the performance of the university and its staff.The responses to the open-ended question were contentanalysed and the results are shown in Table 15. The tableshows the number of times each was reported as either thefirst, second or third initiative listed. Percentages are alsoprovided for each.

The three sets of priorities are combined to indicate thefrequency with which each initiative was mentioned andare summarised in Figure 5. The most frequently mentionedinitiatives concern the job evaluation and pay reviews as

part of the NFA. These are followed by initiatives addressingleadership development, reviews of strategy or individualpolicies and performance management. It is interesting tonote that the initiatives rated most effective cover topicssuch as performance management and leadershipdevelopment that were identified as key priority areas forimprovement. This suggests either that even in areas wherepositive initiatives have been taken there is still a need to gofurther; or, perhaps, that some universities have progressedfurther than others in these areas.

First initiative Second initiative Third initiative

n % n % n %

Review of strategy/policy 7 11.1 6 9.5 3 4.8

Job evaluation/pay review/NFA 17 27.0 6 9.5 5 7.9

Staff development 2 3.2 4 6.3 4 6.3

Leadership development 5 7.9 8 12.7 5 7.9

Restructuring 4 6.3 2 3.2 3 4.8

Support/business partner function 3 4.8 2 3.2 5 7.9


Recruitment 3 4.8 0 0.0 2 3.2

Policy implementation 1 1.6 1 1.6 2 3.2


Equality/diversity 1 1.6 4 6.3 1 1.6


Absence/Sickness Management 1 1.6 2 3.2 1 1.6

TU relations/Industrial Action 0 0.0 1 1.6 4 6.3

Career management 0 0.0 4 6.3 1 1.6

Devolution of HR 0 0.0 1 1.6 2 3.2

Miscellaneous Specific 10 15.9 4 6.3 8 12.7

Miscellaneous General 1 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total 61 96.8 59 93.7 55 87.3

REPORTS OF THREE MAJOR HR INITIATIVES TO HAVE POSITIVE IMPACT

TABLE 15

27

HR INITIATIVES MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED AS HAVING HAD A POSITIVE IMPACT

FIGURE 5

Job Evaluation/Pay Review/NFA

Miscellaneous Specific

Leadership Development

Review of Strategy/Policy

Performance Management

Support/Business Partner Function

Staff Development

Reward Management

Restructuring

Modernising HR Systems

Equality/Diversity

Career Management

TU Relations/Industrial Action

Recruitment

Absence/Sickness Management

Policy Implementation

Devolution of HR

Miscellaneous General

0 10

%

20 30 40 50

28


DIMENSIONS OF UNIVERSITY

PERFORMANCE

In this section, we begin to explore aspects of universityperformance. The main focus is on reports of performanceprovided by the HR managers. There is a well-establishedtradition, reflected in the government’s WorkplaceEmployment Relations Surveys 19 of using subjectiveassessments provided by HR specialists. Although this isnot ideal, there is some evidence that it provides areasonably good match to more objective indicators. Weprovide some evidence on this when we begin to look atsuch indicators in a later section. Irrespective of theadvantages of external performance indicators, there aresome issues on which a subjective assessment is the onlysource of information. In such cases, it is preferable to havethe views of several key informants but in this preliminarystudy, this was not feasible.

We start this section by looking at perceptions of thequality of staff, which is an area where a degree ofsubjective judgement is inevitable, before moving on tobroader subjective assessments of the university, some of which can be compared with the more objectiveexternal data. Where possible we obtained ratings alongstandard dimensions and then explored the extent to

which the various items could be combined into scales.Generally, scales give a more accurate measurement thansingle items.

Perceived quality of academic staff

A central assumption in many of the core models linking HRMand organisational performance is that HR practices havetheir impact through their influence on employees.Specifically, it is assumed that HR practices can affect thecompetence, motivation, opportunity to contribute andcommitment of staff. Where this combination of factors isinfluenced, there should be an impact on staff attitudes andbehaviour and, in turn, an impact on organisationalperformance. With this in mind, and as a basis for exploringthe importance of staff attitudes and behaviour in any linkbetween HRM and performance, we asked HR directors for arating of relevant features of academic staff in their university.

Overall rating of academic staff

Five questions were taken from other surveys to exploreaspects of staff behaviour. Ratings were provided on a five-point scale from very low (1) through medium (3) to veryhigh (5). The results are summarised in Table 16. HRdirectors typically rate academic staff, on average, as justbelow 4 (fairly high), on level of motivation, commitment tothe university, quality of work and overall competence ofstaff. However ratings of staff willingness to respond to

PERCEIVED ACADEMIC STAFF CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 16

% % % % % Very low Fairly low Medium Fairly High Very High

Their level of motivation 2 0 27 61 10

Their commitment to the university 2 3 19 60 16

Their willingness to respond to changes 2 23 53 21 2

The quality of their work 0 3 16 71 10

The general quality and competence of the staff 0 3 24 68 5

19 Kersley et al (2006)

29

THE QUALITY OF CONTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF STAFF

TABLE 17

% % % % % Mean SD Very low Fairly low Medium Fairly High Very High

Academic and 3.90 0.67 0 5 13 69 13professional staff

Research staff 3.95 0.65 0 2 19 63 17

Administrative and 3.61 0.61 0 2 40 53 5clerical staff

Manual/operational staff 3.45 0.72 0 8 44 44 5

change are just below the mid-point on the scale, reflectinga more negative assessment.

The five items load onto a single factor and a Cronbach’salpha of 0.76 was found, indicating that the items haveadequate internal reliability for a scale. The items weretherefore combined to form a single measure of staff quality,with a mean of 3.65 (SD=0.49). The variation in reports on thismeasure is relatively low, suggesting a level of consistency oragreement on this issue across the respondents.

Staff workloads

There has been some discussion of increasing staffworkloads and associated increases in pressure and stress.In addition to the five items discussed above, respondentswere therefore asked about their perception of theworkload of academic staff on a five-point range of verylow to very high. On average they scored 3.90 (SD=0.71),indicating that overall they believed staff workload to befairly high.

Academic and other university staff

To set the ratings of academic staff in perspective, HRdirectors were asked to rate the overall level of motivation,commitment and performance of four different groups ofemployees – academic and professional, research,

administrative and clerical and manual/operational. Thesame five-point response scale was used from ‘very low’ to‘very high’. As shown in Table 17, ratings were generallypositive. However the ratings were distinctly higher forresearch and academic/professional staff compared withadministrative and clerical staff and more particularlymanual or operational staff.

Perceived university quality

While external, ‘objective’ or hard data provides what isarguably the most valid measure of universityperformance, it is also useful to collect managementperceptions of university quality and performance. Onereason for this is that management’s subjective perceptionscan often influence their behaviour, irrespective of howaccurate these perceptions may be. They also provide apoint of comparison between the ‘subjective’ and‘objective’assessments that can shed light on the degree ofconfidence we should have in some of the other dataprovided in the survey. Seven items were used to addressthis issue in the current study, with respondents beingasked about the quality of teaching, research,management/leadership, student outcomes, ability toretain staff, the financial position of the university and thequality of the HR function.

30


The results in Table 18 show that perceptions of theperformance of individuals’ own university is invariablypositive. There was greater variation in responses regardingthe quality of research and the financial position but evenon these the ratings tended on balance to be positive.While it is encouraging to see the positive assessment oftheir university’s performance by these HR directors, theresults are not without their problems. The questionspecifically asked them to rate their performance as betteror worse compared with other universities. On most items,the great majority rated the performance of their universityas better than others, or above average. By the law ofaverages this is not possible unless we have a sample that ispositively biased towards high performing universities -this seems implausible. Other studies, such as TheWorkplace Employment Relations Survey also find a positivebias when asking for comparative ratings but it is notusually as strong as that reported here. We will return tothis issue in the discussion but for now the pattern ofresults suggests that we need to be cautious in giving agreat deal of weight to them.

Factor analysis confirms that all the items load highly on asingle factor and that the resultant scale has an internalreliability of 0.73. There is therefore some justification forcombining the items into a single measure and this will bedone for the subsequent analyses 20.

Perceived Influence of the HR Function

A set of seven questions asked about the extent to whichthe HR function is able to influence a range of outcomes.Some related to the core university activities of teachingand research while others addressed broader managementissues such as the institution’s financial position and staffretention. Responses were provided on a five-point scalefrom ‘no influence’(1) to ‘very large influence’(5). The resultsare shown in Table 19.

The HR directors rate the influence of their function asgenerally low. This applies more particularly with respectto the core university-specific activities concerned withresearch, teaching and the quality of student outcomes.They are more positive about their influence on more

PERCEIVED UNIVERSITY QUALITY

TABLE 18

% % % % % Well below Below Above Well above

average average Average average average

The quality of the teaching 0 2 15 67 17

The quality of the research 0 22 36 24 19

The quality of the top management/leadership 2 5 29 48 16

The quality of student outcomes, such as grades, 0 3 25 52 20completion rates, employment rates, etc.

Ability to retain staff 0 3 25 56 16

The financial position 3 16 29 26 26

The quality of the human resource function 0 2 19 65 15

20 Exploratory factor analyses carried out on the items measuring perceptions of university performance identified two factors. The first four items loaded onto one factor and the last three onto

another. However, neither the first four items nor the last three were found to have acceptable internal reliability (0.59 and 0.34 respectively). In contrast, in a single factor solution, each item

loading is greater than 0.45 and the internal consistency is much higher at 0.73.

31

managerial outcomes. The most obvious of these is thequality of the HR function. In addition, they are moderatelypositive about their ability to influence the retention of staffand the quality of top management. These responsesprovide some idea of where HR directors believe they cancurrently exert influence. It seems that in most cases, anyinfluence on research, teaching and student outcomes islikely to be indirect at best.

Factor analysis confirmed that there are two factors, onecovering the three research, teaching and student outcomesand the other covering the four more managerial outcomes 21.

Alternatively, if one looks at a single factor solution, each itemloads onto a single factor and the internal consistency of theresulting scale is also adequate at 0.78. Therefore while there isa case for keeping the two factors separate, it seems justifiableto use the seven items in a single scale and for pragmaticreasons, this is what we will do in the subsequent analysis. Themean score for this combined measure is 2.84 (SD=0.50).

PERCEIVED INFLUENCE OF HR

TABLE 19

% % % % %No Small Sizable Quite large Very large

influence influence influence influence influence

The quality of the teaching 8 56 31 5 0

The quality of the research 11 68 19 2 0

The quality of the top management/leadership 2 23 35 35 5

The quality of student outcomes, such as grades, 28 61 11 0 0completion rates, employment rates, etc.

Ability to retain staff 0 11 43 41 5

The financial position 3 48 29 17 3

The quality of the human resource function 2 0 11 43 44

21 Both sets of items have acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.77 & 0.88 respectively). The mean score for the factor representing teaching, research and student outcomes is 2.09

(SD=0.53). The mean score for the factor representing quality of management, retention, financial position and HR function is 3.39 (SD=0.63).

32


HR Count Policy & Practice HR Department

HR Strategy HR Count (1-4 scale) effectiveness effectiveness

University size 0.08 0.10 0.19 0.14 - 0.01

Old university -0.05 0.02 0.07 -0.08 0.03

New university 0.27 * 0.22 ^ 0.19 0.19 0.19

Very new university -0.27 * -0.31 * -0.32 * -0.15 -0.27 *

Member top management 0.03 - 0.15 0.03 0.03 -0.10team

HR department structure -0.02 0.15 0.11 0.05 0.08

Environmental uncertainty -0.49 *** -0.25 ^ -0.42 *** -0.50 *** -0.23 ^

HR influence 0.27 * 0.13 0.27 * 0.23 ^ 0.35 **

Effectiveness of top 0.59 *** 0.31 * 0.38 ** 0.49 *** 0.38 **

management

Effectiveness of middle 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.42 *** 0.24 ^

management

^ p <.10;* p <.05;** p <.01; *** p <.001

INFLUENCES OF HR STRATEGY, ACTIVITY AND EFFECTIVENESS

TABLE 20

22 Table 11 on page 19 of this report

INFLUENCES ON HR ACTIVITIES AND

EFFECTIVENESS

In this section, we begin to explore the associations betweenthe main variables within the analytic framework set out atthe start of this report in Figure 1. As a first step, we explorethe background factors associated with the core HR activitiesand with ratings of effectiveness of HR practices and the HRdepartment. We have background measures of the type ofuniversity, reflected in size and whether they are old, new orvery new universities; the context, reflected in ratings ofenvironmental uncertainty; the structure and positioning ofthe HR function within the university; and the effectivenessof the support to HR provided by management. Ideally, wewould explore these relationships through a regressionanalysis; however, because of the small sample size, we usedcorrelations. The results are shown in Table 20.

The results reveal a number of significant associations. TheHR strategy measure is the combined score on the fouritems, summarised in Table 8, that provide an indication ofthe extent to which there is a well-developed and well-

integrated HR strategy in the university. This is more likely tobe the case in new universities, where the HR departmentrates itself as influential and more particularly where the topmanagement is rated as providing effective support. Incontrast, the development of strategy is rated as poorer inthe very new universities and where there is a high degree ofenvironmental uncertainty.

Only two items are clearly associated with the count of thenumber of practices in place for academic staff. There aremore in universities where HR directors rate the effectivenessof the support for HR from the top management as highlyeffective but there are fewer practices in place in the verynew universities. When we adjust the count to incorporatethose practices that are in the process of being introduced 22

then the picture changes a bit. In addition to the significantassociations with very new universities and topmanagement support, we now find that a high level ofenvironmental uncertainty is associated with few HRpractices while a more influential HR department isassociated with more practices either in place, in the processof implementation or planned.

33

HR directors provided ratings of the effectiveness of thecurrent HR practices which are summarised in Table 13. Theaverage level of effectiveness of practices is higher when thesupport for HR provided by both senior and middlemanagement is more effective. In contrast, it is considerablylower where there is perceived to be a high level ofenvironmental uncertainty. HR directors also provided anassessment of the effectiveness of their own departments.These results were described in Table 14. The results in Table20 show that a higher rating of HR department effectivenessis associated with effective support from top managementand a more influential HR department but that the rating islower in the very new universities.

Taken together, these results highlight the importance ofeffective support for HR from the top management, thenegative influence of environmental uncertainty and atendency for those in the very new universities to be rathermore self-critical. Practices are more developed and ratings ofeffectiveness also tend to be more positive where the HRdirector rates the influence of the HR department as beinghigher, although on this item it is particularly difficult todisentangle cause and effect. Finally, it is worth noting that thesize of the university, the structure of the HR department andthe positioning of the HR director in the top managementteam are not associated with any of these outcomes.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Self-report

university quality 3.76 0.58

2 Self-report

staff quality 3.65 0.49 0.54***

3 The 2007

Times rating 51.96 27.80 0.59*** 0.15

4 Teaching Quality 21.60 0.82 0.40** 0.13 0.77***

5 Research Quality

(RAE) 3.94 1.48 0.46*** 0.14 0.88*** 0.60***

6 Employment

Indicator 92.94 3.06 0.36** 0.09 0.57*** 0.44*** 0.46***

7 Profit 02 – 03a 1312.90 2830.20 0.04 0.01 0.17 0.03 0.25^ 0.16

8 Profit 03 – 04a 1671.10 2676.80 0.06 0.16 -0.06 -0.04 0.01 -0.03 0.55***

9 Profit 04 – 05a 1357.10 3522.40 0.02 0.08 0.07 0.17 0.11 0.03 0.39** 0.65***

10 Profit Increase

02 – 05 44.20 3323.20 -0.04 0.10 -0.14 0.03 -0.20 -0.03 -0.31* 0.19 0.56***

aMeans and SDs presented on raw profit (£000s), profit per full-time employee used in correlations

^ p <.10; * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND INTER-CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PERFORMANCE MEASURES

TABLE 21

34


INFLUENCES ON UNIVERSITY

PERFORMANCE

In this section, we provide what are perhaps the key findingsof the study by exploring the factors associated with thevarious indicators of university performance. A number ofmeasures of university quality and performance areavailable. We have already shown the results of the ratingsby HR directors of the quality and effectiveness of theirinstitution and the staff employed by it. However, a numberof sources are available externally.

Firstly, league tables are produced by a number of thecountry’s newspapers, the most recent being the 2007Times Good University Guide. While there is some debateover the utility of league tables, they remain an importantcommodity within the sector and have a real impact on thepublic perception of each institution.

Secondly, the quality of teaching in each university has beenaudited by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). Scoresbased upon these audits can be used as another indicator ofuniversity performance.

Thirdly, research performance is an important activity ineach institution and has become more so since theintroduction of research-related government funding.Funding is allocated based largely on the outcome of theResearch Assessment Exercise (RAE). Average RAE scores foreach institution can be computed and are used in thefollowing analyses. These are now somewhat dated, havingbeen reported for 2001 and do not apply to the very newuniversities. On the other hand, few observers expect anyvery dramatic shift in the rankings among universities whenthe next RAE findings are reported.

Fourthly, HESA produce a number of performanceindicators for the university sector each year. These includemostly information on student-relevant outcomes, suchwidening participation, non-continuation rates, modulecompletion rates and graduate employment, as well asinformation on research output. For this purpose,information on graduate employment for the latest yearavailable (2004/5) is used to represent student outcomes.

Finally, each institution has to provide details of theirincome and expenditure each year. From this it is possible tocalculate an indication of profit, taking into account the size

of the university. Figures for the three years between2002/03 and 2004/05 are used as well as a measure of theincrease in this profit across these years. It is important tonote that data was not available for 10 of the 12 very newuniversities with regard to the The ‘2007 Times GoodUniversity Guide’ league table rating, the Teaching Qualityassessment and the RAE, therefore the findings with thesevariables are largely limited to new and old universities.

The relationship between respondent ratings of

effectiveness and external ratings of effectiveness

With such a diverse range of measures of universityperformance, a preliminary question concerns the extent towhich these measures are associated with the each other.The correlations between the various measures of universityquality and performance are presented in Table 21. It shouldbe noted that the 2007 Times rating has been recoded, sothat a higher ranking is an indication of higher ‘performance’.

A first finding of interest is the consistent correlationbetween the self-report measure of university quality and allof the non-financial external measures of universityperformance. This may come about because the HRdirectors are aware of the external ratings. In contrast,ratings of academic staff quality are not significantlyassociated with any of the performance measures. Secondly,the four external performance indicators are all highly inter-correlated but are not associated with financial performance.Indeed the measures of profit over the three years appear toform a relatively independent cluster that are significantlyinter-correlated with each other. Predictably, profit increaseover the three years displays a rather different pattern; thosewith high profits in the first year sustain their profitability butdo not show a profit increase while those who reportparticularly strong profits in the most recent year are morelikely also to show a profit increase.

Organisational influences on university performance

Before exploring any association between HR factors anduniversity performance, we need to check any associationswith the various structural and background factors that wehave included in the study. We used the same list oforganisational factors as those used to explore theinfluences on HR practice and effectiveness. The results areshown in Table 22.

The results show only a few associations. HR directormembership of the top management team and ratings of the

35

influence of the HR department have no impact on anyperformance measures. HR directors’perception of the level ofenvironmental uncertainty is associated with significantlylower subjective ratings of performance by the same HRdirectors but with none of the external indicators. Theeffectiveness of the top management is significantly associatedwith higher subjective ratings of university performance andstaff quality and with one of the external indicators, namely theRAE score. This suggests that in those universities where the HRdirector rates the effectiveness of the top management teammore highly, their university score in the last RAE was poorer.The effectiveness of middle management is also negativelyassociated with the RAE score and with a positive profitincrease between 2003 and 2005. Also, a higher employmentindicator was found in universities where the structure of theHR Department was less centralised.

In addition to the correlation analyses, a series of tests(ANOVAs) were carried out to provide a more finely grainedexamination of whether university type and HR department

structure had an effect on these performance measures. Thefollowing findings emerged. Old universities were found tohave significantly higher scores for self-report universityquality, a better overall Times rating and higher scores forteaching and research quality than the other universities. Inaddition, the employment indicators were better for olduniversities. No significant differences were found on anyother variables, including all of the financial indicators.Regarding the HR department structure, a significantdifference was found with respect to RAE ratings. Thesewere higher in universities where the HR structure was asmall central and strategic core with the rest decentralised.It is important to emphasise that the small group sizes inthese analyses limit the power of the tests and reduce thelikelihood of significant findings.

There is one surprising result in this analysis of theassociation between organisational factors and universityperformance. Where HR directors rate the effectiveness ofthe support from top and middle management for HR

ORGANISATIONAL CORRELATES OF UNIVERSITY QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE

TABLE 22

Member Environ- Effective- Effective-University Old New Very new top mngt HR Dept' mental HR ness of ness of

size University University University team Structure uncertainty influence top mngt middle mngt

Self-report university quality 0.59 *** 0.49 *** -0.28 * -0.26 * 0.10 0.19 -0.30 * 0.21 0.30 * 0.01

Self-reportstaff quality 0.12 0.05 0.04 -0.11 -0.05 0.11 -0.48 *** 0.24^ 0.39 ** 0.24

The 2007 Times rating 0.68 *** 0.77 *** -0.70 *** -0.17 0.09 0.20 -0.03 -0.06 -0.24 -0.23

Teaching Quality 0.39 ** 0.45 *** -0.38 ** -0.16 0.19 0.02 -0.10 0.02 -0.11 -0.19

Research Quality (RAE) 0.59 *** 0.77 *** -0.68 *** -0.20 -0.05 0.17 0.10 -0.19 -0.28 * -0.31*

Employment Indicator 0.14 0.50 *** -0.39 ** -0.12 0.11 0.28* -0.05 0.12 -0.13 -0.09

Profit per employee 0203 0.39 ** 0.36 ** -0.26 * -0.11 -0.02 -0.01 -0.20 -0.09 -0.05 -0.14

Profit per employee 0304 0.27 * 0.18 0.01 -0.24^ -0.01 0.03 -0.05 -0.02 0.11 0.05

Profit per employee 0405 0.14 0.08 0.01 -0.12 -0.07 0.09 -0.09 -0.16 0.13 0.14

Profit Increase 0205 -0.19 -0.22^ -0.23^ -0.03 -0.06 0.11 -0.04 -0.15 0.18 0.25 *

^ p <.10; * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001

36


activities more highly, the university has a lower RAE rating.There are a number of possible explanations for this. Onethat seems plausible is that the effectiveness of support israted more highly in the new as opposed to the olduniversities but it is the old universities that gained the bestRAE ratings in 2001. We should bear in mind that the verynew universities are excluded from this analysis.

HRM and university performance

The final set of data explores the association betweenvarious aspects of HRM and university performance. Indoing so, we are replicating a large number of studies inother organisations that have typically found someassociation between them. The results are shown in Table 23.

The results are fairly straightforward. First, there is aconsistent positive association between all the measures ofHR strategy, practices and effectiveness and subjectiveratings of university quality and quality of academic staff.One of the associations – between the count of HR practices

in place and ratings of university quality – is only marginallysignificant but this does not detract from the strong andconsistent pattern of results. In contrast, the second clearand consistent finding is the absence of any associationbetween the more objective, external measures ofperformance and any of the HR measures. The oneexception is a significant association between thesophistication of HR strategy and profit per employee in2003-04 but this is an isolated finding. It is possible that thesmall sample size has reduced the number of significantfindings, but a perusal of Table 23 shows that as many of theassociations are negative as positive so there is noindication that a larger sample would have resulted in a setof significant and positive associations.

On the basis of these results, we are forced to conclude that,unlike the results reported to date for most other sectors,there appears to be no association in the university sectorbetween HRM and external indicators of performance.

HR Count Policy & Practice HR Department

HR Strategy HR Count (1-4 scale) effectiveness effectiveness

Self-report university quality 0.35 ** 0.25 ^ 0.28 * 0.34 ** 0.34 **

Self-report staff quality 0.63 *** 0.53 *** 0.58 *** 0.67 *** 0.52 ***

The 2007 Times rating -0.05 -0.10 -0.03 -0.05 -0.22

Teaching Quality -0.05 -0.15 -0.11 -0.11 -0.21

Research Quality (RAE) -0.01 -0.10 -0.03 -0.14 -0.19

Employment Indicator 0.00 0.00 -0.02 -0.02 0.02

Profit per employee 0203 0.11 - 0.03 0.02 0.06 -0.01

Profit per employee 0304 0.26 * 0.01 -0.01 0.09 0.17

Profit per employee 0405 0.17 -0.20 -0.21 0.01 0.03

Profit Increase 0205 0.15 - 0.06 -0.06 0.07 0.10

^ p <.10; * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001

INTER-CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND HR MEASURES

TABLE 23

38


DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

This report has presented the results of what is best viewedas a very preliminary study of the state of HRM in UKuniversities and also the relationship between HRM andperformance. The study had four main aims and we start byreviewing the findings in the relation to these aims.

The first aim was to explore the current application of HRMamong universities in the UK. The evidence is consistentwith the view that the Rewarding and Developing Staffinitiatives have had a considerable impact. Almost alluniversities now have a HR strategy and there is evidencefrom the analysis of practices in place, from recentachievements and from current plans, that a range ofinitiatives is in the pipeline. At the time of the survey, in mid2006, considerable time and energy was being devoted todealing with the industrial dispute and with the nationalframework agreement for job evaluation. Some corepractices are now well established in a majority ofuniversities. These cover appraisal, basic training for newstaff, internal promotion, features of flexible workingarrangements and computerised information systems.Several others practices are in the process of beingintroduced including, most notably, job evaluation, equalopportunities, training for heads of departments,retirement and succession planning and fuller integration ofthe various HR policies and practices. Other issues are stillon the drawing board or not being considered at all. Fromthis evidence, it appears that university HR departments arestill at the stage of introducing and applying core practices.There is a need to establish credibility in the application ofthese basic practices before it might become feasible toadopt the role of business partner or change agent.

The evidence on effectiveness of the HR practices and the HRdepartment confirms that only a limited core of very basicactivities are considered to be implemented effectively.These include aspects of recruitment, selection and retentionand some training and where it is applied, job evaluation isalso rated as effective. This leaves large areas of practice, evenin the HR heartland, where there is scope to introduce andproduce effective practices. In general, the activities of staff inthe HR departments are rated as more effective than thepractices for which they have responsibility. This may bebecause the day-to-day implementation of the practices lieslargely in the hands of line managers whose competence andcommitment to implement them effectively may be suspect,

as well as largely out of the control of the HR professionals.HR directors rate the effectiveness of their staff most highly inrelation to providing advice to managers and to staff; perhapsmore surprisingly, they also highly rate their effectiveness inprogressing HR projects and initiatives, their speed ofresponse to requests from managers and their ability toexplain policies and procedures. It would be interesting tosee how far line managers agree with these assessments.

A series of open-ended questions asked about currentproblems, priorities and recent achievements of the HRDirectors. These attracted a wide variety of responses;however two topics appeared on several lists. Theseconcerned leadership/leadership development, andperformance management. There is a sense in which thesealmost seem to have become mantras for what HRdepartments ought to be focussing on. Both area wouldclearly benefit from more detailed scrutiny to identifywhether there is any consistent meaning and concernunderlying them. Leadership is identified as the major HRchallenge facing their university by almost 40 per cent ofrespondents in this study. Asked about the initiatives theywould most like to introduce, over 50 per cent citedperformance management and over 40 per cent citedleadership development. Performance managementgenerally and managing poor performance in particularwere identified as by far the least effectively managed areasof HRM practice. Ironically, when asked to identify theinitiatives that have had the most positive impact,leadership development and performance managementfeature quite highly on the list, presumably cited by HRdirectors from other universities. More specifically, in thiscontext, it is not clear who the ‘leaders’ are that needdeveloping and it is not clear which aspects of performancemanagement need particular attention. An investigationinto the substance behind the rhetoric that seemed toappear in some of the responses, would be interesting.

In summary, the evidence on the current application of HRMconfirms significant progress and a fluid situation with manynew initiatives in the pipeline. It also confirms that there is aconsiderable distance still to travel in many universitiesbefore even a number of basic practices are in place andoperating effectively.

The second aim was to explore the extent to which HRM isviewed primarily as an administrative or strategic activity.Until relatively recently, it was probably fair to consider the

39

relevant section of the university as dealing with “personneladministration”. The Rewarding and Developing Staffinitiatives were designed to change this view and theyappear to have succeeded, at least in the eyes of the HRDirectors. Allowing for a little bias, we should not besurprised to find that the great majority view their functionas strategic rather than administrative. While this isunderstandable, the analysis of Ulrich and other observersof the HR function have emphasised the need to fulfilmultiple roles. It is essential to be excellent atadministration rather than to eschew it. The robust denialsthat the function is primarily administrative may not beshared by line managers. On the other hand, these denialsare plausible to the extent that the department should notbe primarily administrative, although without highlyeffective administrative HR systems, it is unlikely thatstrategic initiatives have much chance of success.

The third aim was to examine the priority and support givento HRM by the university leadership. Evidence about thiswas gained by asking HR Directors for their views on theeffectiveness of different levels of management indeveloping and applying HR strategy, policy and practice.The results are encouraging to the extent that the topmanagement team and the vice chancellors in particular areviewed as supportive both in developing and applyingHRM. In the interviews and focus groups there wereaccounts of good access to, and firm support from, the vicechancellor to back up these assessments. Moving down themanagement hierarchy, the picture becomes less positive.Middle and junior managers might not be expected tocontribute greatly to strategy formulation but they have amajor responsibility for the application of related policy andpractice. In this respect, their contribution is rated as onlymoderate. The evidence therefore suggests that there isgood leadership from the top in developing and supportingapplication of HR strategy. If there is a possible failure ofleadership, it is in ensuring that HR issues are treated withthe same level of commitment at lower levels in themanagement chain.

The fourth aim was to explore the association between HRMand indicators of university performance. The study wasconducted in the context of an increasing number ofstudies in other sectors that have shown an associationbetween the application of what are variously described as‘high performance HR practices’ or high commitment HRpractices’ and a range of indicators of organisational

performance. Unlike the great majority of these studies, thisstudy in the university sector reveals no association. In therest of this section we consider why this should be so,addressing four possible explanations. These concern thedistinctive features of universities; the state of HRM inuniversities; the role of academic line managers; and thenature of the study.

Universities might be considered as distinctive in a numberof key respects. Firstly, they are among a limited set ofinstitutions that have in many cases survived for a very longtime. The old universities in particular have established areputation that reinforces their ability to operate effectivelyin the contemporary environment. Self-perpetuating andmutually reinforcing patterns of success have operatedwithout a pressing need for modern managementapproaches. However while this may make universitiesdistinctive, it is also a tradition that is being questioned.Influential political figures such as Gordon Brown havecalled for more effective management of the universitiesand this call is being answered at top levels in institutions.Yet a number of academics are reluctant to respond to thiscall, and the perception among the HR directors in this studythat academics are resistant to change, is a reflection of this.

There appears to be a struggle, some might even say abattle, going on in universities between the traditions ofprofessional autonomy and the introduction ofmanagerialism. One focus of this struggle concerns the roleof middle management. In the old universities the head ofdepartment or head of faculty was by tradition anappropriate academic who gave up a small part of hisacademic activity to administer the department or facultyfor a limited period of between three and five years. He orshe was an amateur who rarely had aspirations to becomeeither a full-time or a permanent manager. Now anincreasing number of universities are seeking to introducemore formal systems of management that challenge thefeasibility of fulfilling both the academic and the managerialrole simultaneously.

This discussion is directly relevant to HRM in two ways. Thefirst is that part-time, short-term amateur managers arerarely going to give a high priority to applying HRM. Yet HRdepartments rely for their effectiveness on managers at alllevels being committed to the strategies, polices andpractices and to the values associated with them. It is thesemiddle managers who are expected to implement HRM on

40


a day-to day basis. The second reason why the discussion isrelevant is that HRM is likely to be part of the march towardsmanagerialism. HR managers may not be in the vanguardof the introduction of professional management inuniversities but they are following closely behind. In thisthey have been supported by the incentives offered toadopt the practices advocated in Hefce’s Rewarding andDeveloping Staff initiatives.

In summary, universities have been distinctive in theirability to thrive while neglecting professional managementbut that era is coming to an end. Set against this history,they share with professional service organisations adependence on the quality of their staff to thrive in anincreasingly competitive world. And it is the coreprofessional staff, namely the academics, that have primacyin this respect. It therefore follows that the ability to attract,utilise, reward and retain the most talented academicsavailable over a significant period is a key to a university’ssuccess. The development and application of systems toensure that this occurs lies at the heart of what HRmanagers do. While the HR specialist may not takedecisions about the selection or pay of key academics,effective systems will help to ensure that optimal decisionsare made. It therefore follows that effective HRM should becentral to the pursuit of university excellence.

Turning, therefore, to the second issue that might explainthe failure to find an association between HRM andperformance in universities, what do the results tell us aboutthe development of HRM in universities? A first point toreinforce is that building on the work of Michael Bett, theRewarding and Developing Staff initiatives recognised therelatively primitive state of HRM in universities. On apositive note, these initiatives have served to raise theprofile of university HRM; the financial incentives inparticular mean that it is likely to have been discussedwithin the top management team. Furthermore, some ofthe key problems facing vice-chancellors and their seniormanagers are HR issues. These include the attraction,retention and reward of top quality staff; the managementof poor performance; the achievement of change; theflexibility required for cross-functional and cross-disciplinecollaboration; the management of employment contractsfor those at the start of their careers and the successionplanning and retirement policies for those coming towardsthe end of theirs. Yet many of these may not be recognisedas issues for the HR department to address because in thepast it may not have been considered fit for purpose.

The results of this study suggest that HR directors are awareof the challenges they face and, encouragingly, believe thatthey are receiving top management support for theirendeavours. However, as noted above, when they cite theirachievements, they tend to be in the traditional areas ofrecruitment and selection or the associated area ofretention. They are not managers of change; they do notplay a leading role in development. Their major projects aretraditional areas of formalisation such as job evaluation. Thecore issues being addressed are those that sizeableorganisations in other sectors gave priority to twenty orthirty years ago. In short, it can be argued that universityHRM is at a comparatively, fairly primitive state ofdevelopment. In this context, HR directors consider thatthey are doing a reasonably good job. They rate the HRstrategy to be well integrated and quite sophisticated; theyrate the effectiveness of the HR practices and the HRdepartment quite highly. These ratings are fair comment forthose travelling in the foothills with limited ambition. Theyare less impressive set against the perhaps idealistic targetof becoming HR champions. In summary, part of the lack ofassociation between HR activities and universityperformance might be attributed to the relativelyundeveloped state of HRM in most universities.

A third factor that might help to explain the lack of anyassociation between HRM and performance in universities,and one potentially shared with all organisations, concernsthe implementation of human resource management. Asnoted above, HR departments can develop sophisticatedsystems for selection, training, performance appraisal andrewards; but these have to be implemented by linemanagers. If those managers do not share the valuesassociated with such practices or do not accord them muchpriority, then the outcome is likely to be some form of oftenineffective ritual compliance. One of the features oforganisations that demonstrate an association betweenHRM and performance is a high level of strategic integrationwhereby line managers support the values inherent in HRpolicy and practice. The survey results implied that whilesuch support was provided by the top management team,responses were more equivocal when it came to middlemanagement. The same finding was reported in the studyby Archer 23 who found commitment to modern HR at thetop levels of universities but what one HR directormemorably described as “a thick layer of cloud below”. Byimplication, there is a need for some considerable shift inthe cultures of many universities if human resourcemanagement is to be effectively implemented.

23 Archer, W. (2005)

4124 Archer, W. (2005)25 Farndale, E and Hope-Hailey, V. (2004)

The fourth potential explanation lies in the study itself. Themethod adopted is similar to that used in many otherstudies. However there are a number of potentiallimitations. First, the response rate was disappointing, duein part to the timing of the survey during the long-runningdispute with the academic unions. As the responsesindicate, this issue was uppermost in the minds of many HRdirectors. On the other hand, we have no reason to believethat the sample was not reasonably representative. We canget some idea of this from the external performance ratings.For example, the mean score on the Times 2007 ranking was52 with a standard deviation of 28 suggesting a goodspread of institutions. A further shortcoming of the smallsample is that it has not proved possible to conduct the kindof sophisticated multivariate analysis that is normally to bepreferred when seeking to explain relationships. On theother hand, correlations often provide reasonably accurateindications of where the significant associations are likely toexist in a fuller multivariate analysis. Another problemassociated with conducting a small-scale study is that weonly have a single respondent, the HR director. It wouldhave been highly desirable to have obtained the views ofother top level managers about the various issues coveredand more particularly the assessment of HR effectiveness.Yet in previous studies, the HR directors have been at leastas critical of HR effectiveness as the senior line managers orchief executive officers. So the pattern of results may nothave been very different if we had been able to obtain theseadditional perspectives.

Given all these circumstances, we cannot arrive at a firmview about why there is no association between HRM andperformance in universities. It seems likely to be partlyattributable to the current organisation of management inuniversities, and in particular the state of middlemanagement, and also partly attributable to the relativelylimited development of HRM in most universities. A fullerstudy, complementing survey work with detailed casestudies is likely to shed clearer light on why we haveobtained these results. At the same time, it is important tonote that two other studies of HRM in universities providebroadly similar findings to those reported here. Archer 24, ina report titled Mission Critical?, based on interviews in 2004with 44 heads of universities and HR functions in thoseuniversities, found considerable progress in developing amore strategic HR function along with more advancedpractices but major problems of integration and therefore,

by implication, little impact. Farndale and Hope-Hailey 25 in a2002 study involving a cross-section of UK universitiesreported a continuing lack of power among HR specialists toensure delivery of HR policies and practices. In summary,while there is evidence of advances in HR strategy anddevelopment of policies and practices, there is consistentevidence across the studies, including our study, of themajor problems of implementation and impact.

Bearing in mind the limited scale of this study, it is perhapsmore sensible to raise issues rather than offer any firmconclusions. It is in this context that some furtherobservations are offered.

The structure of HR departments. There is no evidencethat the positioning of the HR director in relation to the topmanagement team or the structure of the HR departmenthas any consistent effect on outcomes. An exception to thisgeneral finding is some indication that those universitieswhere the department is organised around a small strategiccore with decentralised generalists report superior researchperformance. There is clearly a wide variety of ways in whichdepartments are structured, reflecting the variations inuniversity structures as well as factors such as size. Howeverfurther thought might usefully be given to the ways inwhich certain structures can best contribute to the strategicgoals of the HR department.

Uncertainty. The measure of uncertainty was used in anexploratory way following some of the initial interviews. Inthe event, it had a greater impact than might have beenanticipated. Those who reported that their university wasoperating in a more uncertain environment tended to givemore negative responses to a number of items, moreparticularly those associated with the development andeffectiveness of HRM. It may be that uncertainty has aparalysing effect on these institutions. However before wecan reach this conclusion, we would need to collect thesame information from other managers. There is thepossibility that the responses to the uncertainty itemsreflect the idiosyncratic view of the HR director, and that thisrather negative view has been also reflected in some of theirother responses. Again, more research is needed.

HR strategy. The results on the current state of HR strategyare generally encouraging. As we might expect, HR strategywas less well developed at the very new universities. Theone item that merits specific mention is the communication

42


of the strategy to those managers who have to implementrelated policies and practices. There is some indication thatin a number of cases this is rather left to chance. If so, it isonly to be expected that these managers may not actstrategically or, if the broader purposes of the policy has notbeen communicated, may not even implement it at all. It isobviously important that the HR strategy is clearlycommunicated to all those likely to be directly or indirectlyaffected by it.

Ratings of university performance. The ratings of theiruniversity performance by the HR directors merit somefurther reflection. As noted in the report, it is reasonable toexpect a positive response bias. However in this case it wasremarkably strong. The great majority of HR directorsapparently believe that their university is performing betterthan most others on a range of criteria. Since this is clearlyimpossible, we can speculate on how this came about. It ispossible that there is an ignorance of the national statistics.It is also possible that they have been forgotten. They mayalso be viewed as dated and HR directors believe thatdespite previous ratings, their position is now much morepositive. One of the issues that has not emerged as a keyconcern is the quality of the HR information systems

although over 20 per cent identified modernising HRsystems as a key priority for future attention. One of thequestions that arises is how well informed the HRcommunity is about the performance of their university asmeasured by external criteria. In an era when manyuniversities are involved in benchmarking theirperformance, the inability to present an accurate accountmay be viewed as a cause for concern.

In summary, this study has shed some light on the currentstate of the development of HRM in universities. Like theother studies, it reports progress but also that much moreneeds to be done. In contrast to many other sectors, thestudy has found no evidence of a link between moreadvanced HR practice and university performance, andsome of the possible reasons for this have been discussed.However a detailed analysis of the reasons for this liesbeyond the scope of this study. Indeed, in considering theimplications of the findings and the various issues raised, itis important to emphasise once again that this is apreliminary, small scale study, and as such, it raises anumber of issues for consideration rather than pointingfirmly in certain policy directions.

43

REFERENCES

Archer, W. (2005). “Mission Critical? Modernising HumanResource Management in Higher Education.” Oxford: HigherEducation Policy Institute.

Barney, J. (2001). “Firm resources and sustained competitiveadvantage”. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120

Barney, J. and Wright, P. (1998). “On becoming a strategicpartner: the roles of human resources in gainingcompetitive advantage”. Human Resource Management, 37:31-46.

Becker, B. and Huselid, M. (1998). “High performance worksystems and firm performance: A synthesis of research andmanagerial implications”. In G. R. Ferris (ed) Research inPersonnel and Human Resource Management. 16; 53-101.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

Bett, M. (1999). Independent Review of Higher Education Payand Conditions: Report of a Committee. Norwich: HMSO.

Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005). “Strategic humanresource management: Where have we come from, andwhere should we be going?” Human Resource ManagementJournal, 15 (3): 67-94.

Bowen, D. and Ostroff, C. (2004). “Understanding HRM-firmperformance linkages: The role of ‘strength’ of the HRMsystem”. Academy of Management Review, 29: 203-221.

Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2003). Strategy and Human ResourceManagement. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A. and Ketchen, D. (2006). “How muchdo high performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance”.Personnel Psychology, 59: 501-528.

Dearing Report (1997). Report of a National Committee ofInquiry Into Higher Education. Norwich: HMSO.

Farndale, E. and Hope-Hailey, V. (2004). “Personneldepartment power: sealed in an institutional vacuum.”Paperpresented at EGOS conference, Llubljana, Slovenia. 1-3 July.

Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C. (1993). “Understandingstrategic organizational change: The contribution ofarchetypes”. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1052-1081.

Guest, D., Michie, J., Sheehan, M. and Conway, N. (2003).“Human resource management and corporate performancein the UK”. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41: 291-314.

Guest, D. and Peccei, R. (1994). “The nature and causes ofhuman resource management effectiveness”. British Journalof Industrial Relations, 32: 219-242.

Guest, D, Peccei, R. and Dewe, P. (2004). “Human resourcemanagement and performance in the UK National HealthService”. Department of Management Working Paper, King’sCollege, London.

Hefce (2000). Rewarding and Developing Staff in HigherEducation. Bristol: Hefce.

Hefce (2001). Rewarding and Developing Staff in HigherEducation 2. Bristol: Hefce.

Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G.and Oxenbridge, S. (2006). Inside the Workplace: Findingsfrom the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey.London: Routledge.

Skinner, W. (1981). “Big hat, no cattle: managing humanresources”. Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct, 1981, 106-114.

Ulrich, D. (1997). Human Resource Champions. Boston, Mass:Harvard Business School Press.

West, M., Borrill, C., Dawson, J., Scully, J., Carter, M, Anelay, S, Patterson, M. and Waring, J. (2002). “The link between the management of employees and patient mortality inacute hospitals”. International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 13, 1299-1310.

Wright, P., Gardner, T., Moynihan, L. and Allen, M. (2005). “Therelationship between HR practices and firm performance:Examining causal order”. Personnel Psychology, 58: 409-446.

44


45

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT, KING’S COLLEGE LONDON AND THE LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATIONRespondents are anonymous and information about individual answers will not be reported

Dear participant,

We would like to invite you to fill out this questionnaire. This will not take more than 20 minutes.The questionnaire is part of a study looking at human resource management in UK universities. Wewant to stress that participation is voluntary. The information you provide is confidential. Noindividual answers will be reported. If you have any questions or queries with regards thisquestionnaire or the research in general, please contact the researchers at the following address:

Please answer as many questions as you can. There are no right or wrong answers.

Thank you in advance for taking part

Professor David Guest

Department of ManagementKing’s College London150 Stamford StreetLondon. SE1 9NHtel: 020 7848 3723email: [email protected]

Mike Clinton

Department of ManagementKing’s College London150 Stamford StreetLondon. SE1 9NHtel: 020 7848 3472email: [email protected]

46


1. What is your job title?

2. In which university do you work?

3. Who do you directly report to?

4. Are you a member of the top management team in the university? Yes No

I. YOU AND YOUR UNIVERSITY

5. How many people belong to this top team?

6. What is the total number of staff (FTEs) in the university?

7. How many professional staff (as opposed to secretarial andadministrative staff ) are employed as specialists in humanresource management and closely related areas, such astraining and development?

8. How long have you been in your present job? years

9. How long have you been employed at this university? years

10. Please indicate what proportion of your career to date hasbeen spent in the following sectors?

University sector

Other public sector

Private sector

%

%

%

11. Which of the following best describes how your HR department is structured?

Predominantly centralised but with nominated links to specific colleges/faculties/schools

Predominantly centralised and organised around functional groups (e.g. selection, training,equal opportunities)

Small central strategic and advisory core; the rest decentralised to colleges/faculties/schools

If the structure is different from any of these, please briefly describe it below:

II. THE HR DEPARTMENT

47

12. Please list the three major HR initiatives that have had the most positive impact on the performance of theuniversity and its staff in the past three years:

1.

2.

3.

13. Please list the three most difficult HR challenges that you have had to address in the past year:

1.

2.

3.

14. Please list the three major HR initiatives you would most like to introduce because you believe they wouldhave a major positive impact on the performance of the university and its staff:

1.

2.

3.

15. Please list the three major HR problems that the university currently faces:

1.

2.

3.

48


16. Please list the three main sources of uncertainty currently facing the university?

17. Please answer the following questionsabout the environment in which youruniversity is operating:

III. THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

IV. HR POLICIES AND PRACTICES

1.

2.

3.

Not at all A small A fair A lot Completelyamount amount

1 2 3 4 5

18. Please indicate the extent to whichyou agree or disagree with thefollowing statements:

Strongly Somewhat Partly agree Somewhat Stronglydisagree disagree partly disagree agree agree

1 2 3 4 5

a) To what extent is the environment within which this university is operating predictable?

a) This university has a clearly articulated humanresource strategy

b) To what extent is it possible to predict how anyenvironmental changes will impact upon thisuniversity?

1 2 3 4 5c) To what extent are you confident in the actions

this university plans to take in response to thechanges in the environment?

1 2 3 4 5

b) The human resource strategy is activelysupported by the top management team

1 2 3 4 5

c) HR policies and practices are deliberatelyintegrated with, and support the wider strategyof the university

1 2 3 4 5

d) The human resource strategy is formallycommunicated to, and discussed with those linemanagers who have to implement relatedpolicy and practice on a day-to-day basis

1 2 3 4 5

e) The role of the HR department is essentially thatof an administrative function. 1 2 3 4 5

19. To focus your responses, recognising that practices vary depending on the category of staff to whichthey are applied, the next section is concerned with academic staff. They have been selected as thelargest occupational group in most universities.

No Thinking about In the process Yesintroducing of implementing

a) Regular appraisal of all staff

Are the following policies and practices inplace for academic staff in your university?

1 2 3 4

b) Formal training in how to teach for all staffappointed to their first post 1 2 3 4

c) Training for all newly appointed heads ofdepartments 1 2 3 4

d) Training for the top tier of university leadership 1 2 3 4

e) Guaranteed job security 1 2 3 4

f ) Flexible pay to attract and retain staff 1 2 3 4

g) Job evaluation 1 2 3 4

h) Regular attitude surveys 1 2 3 4

i) Systematic monitoring of equal opportunitiespractices 1 2 3 4

j) Support with non-work responsibilities – e.g.child care facilities, flexible hours, financialplanning, legal services, etc.

1 2 3 4

k) Internal promotion for all who merit it 1 2 3 4

l) Retirement/succession/replacement planning 1 2 3 4

m) Computerised systems to ensure high quality,up-to-date HR information 1 2 3 4

n) Formal system of communicating the strategicpriorities of the university to all staff 1 2 3 4

o) All staff systematically informed about theperformance of the university 1 2 3 4

p) HR policies and practices that are deliberatelyintegrated so that one supports andcomplements another

19q) In which of the listed areas ofpolicy and practice are thedifferences with other universitystaff (e.g. clerical/manual) greatest?

(Please indicate using the letters on the left of the page)

1 2 3 4

49

50


V. HR EFFECTIVENESS

20. Please use the scale provided to rate theeffectiveness of the following practices

with respect to the way they are currentlyimplemented in your university:

Not at all Not very Somewhat Fairly Highlyeffective effective effective effective effective

a) General recruitment and selection 1 2 3 4 5

b) Ability to attract top quality staff 1 2 3 4 5

c) General training and development 1 2 3 4 5

d) Academic leadership training and development 1 2 3 4 5

e) University leadership training and development 1 2 3 4 5

f) Appraisal 1 2 3 4 5

g) Performance management 1 2 3 4 5

h) Two-way communication 1 2 3 4 5

i) Processes of employee involvement 1 2 3 4 5

j) Managing flexible employment 1 2 3 4 5

k) Staff planning/succession planning 1 2 3 4 5

l) Reward systems 1 2 3 4 5

m) Ability to retain top quality staff 1 2 3 4 5

n) General retention of staff 1 2 3 4 5

o) Managing poor performance 1 2 3 4 5

p) Diversity/equal opportunity 1 2 3 4 5

q) Discipline 1 2 3 4 5

r) Attendance/absence 1 2 3 4 5

s) The design of job content 1 2 3 4 5

t) Job evaluation 1 2 3 4 5

51

21. Now please rate the effectiveness of the

human resource/personnel department

on the following criteria:Not at all Not very Somewhat Fairly Highlyeffective effective effective effective effective

22. Now please rate the how you feel otherswould rate the performance of thehuman resource/ personnel department.

Not at all Not very Somewhat Fairly Veryconfident confident confident confident confident

a) Progressing HR projects and initiatives 1 2 3 4 5

a) How confident are you that the vice chancellorwould provide similar ratings? 1 2 3 4 5

b) What about the majority of other members ofthe top management team? 1 2 3 4 5

b) Managing/minimising bureaucracy 1 2 3 4 5

c) Speed of response to requests from managers 1 2 3 4 5

d) Maintaining up-to-date HR information 1 2 3 4 5

e) Explaining personnel policies and procedures 1 2 3 4 5

f ) Providing useful advice to managers 1 2 3 4 5

g) Providing advice and help to staff 1 2 3 4 5

h) Contributing to the performance of theuniversity 1 2 3 4 5

i) Initiating and pursuing new ideas 1 2 3 4 5

j) Managing flexible employment 1 2 3 4 5

k) Managing or fostering organisational change 1 2 3 4 5

l) Overcoming resistance to change 1 2 3 4 5

m) Working with trade unions 1 2 3 4 5

n) Developing creativity and innovation 1 2 3 4 5

o) Ensuring quality of application of HR practicesat the local level 1 2 3 4 5

52


VI. LEADERSHIP

23. The implementation of many of the HR policies and practices depends on the quality of the leadershipof any organization, including the leadership at different levels.

Please rate the leadership at different levels on two criteria:(i) Their contribution to the development of HR strategy(ii) Their contribution to the effective application/implementation of HR policy and practice

a) The vice chancellor (or equivalent)

ii) Development

ii) Application

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

b) The majority of othermembers of the topmanagement team

ii) Development

ii) Application

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

c) The majority of othersenior management(Heads of Faculties/Schools/Functions)

ii) Development

ii) Application

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

d) The majority of middleand junior management(Heads of departments/sections)

ii) Development

ii) Application

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all Not very Somewhat Fairly Highlyeffective effective effective effective effective

VII. UNIVERSITY STAFF

24. Please rate academic and professionalstaff in your university on thefollowing criteria:

Very Fairly Fairly Verylow low Medium high high

25. In general, how would you rate themotivation, commitment & performance of…

Very Fairly Fairly Verylow low Medium high high

a) Their level of motivation 1 2 3 4 5

b) Their commitment to the university 1 2 3 4 5

c) Their willingness to respond to changes 1 2 3 4 5

d) The quality of their work 1 2 3 4 5

a) Academic and professional staff? 1 2 3 4 5

b) Research staff? 1 2 3 4 5

c) Administrative and clerical staff? 1 2 3 4 5

d) Manual/operational staff? 1 2 3 4 5

e) Their workload 1 2 3 4 5

f) The general quality and competence of the staff 1 2 3 4 5

VIII. UNIVERSITY QUALITY

IX. PLEASE USE THE SPACE BELOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE FURTHER

COMMENTS ABOUT ISSUES CONTAINED IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE OR ANY OTHERS

ISSUES YOU FEEL IMPORTANT TO RAISE

26. Please rate your university, comparedwith other universities in the UK: Well below Below Above Well above

average average Average average average

27. Please indicate the extent to which theHR function is able to influence:

No Small Sizable Quite large Very largeinfluence influence influence influence influence

a) The quality of the teaching 1 2 3 4 5

b) The quality of the research 1 2 3 4 5

c) The quality of the top management/leadership 1 2 3 4 5

e) Ability to retain staff 1 2 3 4 5

f ) The financial position 1 2 3 4 5

e) The quality of the human resource function 1 2 3 4 5

d) The quality of student outcomes, such as grades,completion rates, employment rates, etc. 1 2 3 4 5

a) The quality of the teaching 1 2 3 4 5

b) The quality of the research 1 2 3 4 5

c) The quality of the top management/leadership 1 2 3 4 5

e) Ability to retain staff 1 2 3 4 5

f ) The financial position 1 2 3 4 5

e) The quality of the human resource function 1 2 3 4 5

d) The quality of student outcomes, such as grades,completion rates, employment rates, etc. 1 2 3 4 5

53

54


David E. Guest Professor of Organisational Psychology and Human Resource Management, King's College London

David Guest is one of the leading academic experts on human resource management and related aspects of work andorganisational psychology. He has a first degree in Psychology and Sociology from Birmingham University and PhD inOccupational Psychology from London University.

His first job was a research officer in the Department of Occupational Psychology at Birkbeck College. He then spent three yearsas behavioural science adviser to British Rail before joining the London School of Economics in 1972. He moved to Birkbeck in1990 and for ten years was Professor of Occupational Psychology and head of the Department of Organisational Psychology.During that period he had a spell as a Governor of Birkbeck and as Pro-Vice Master with responsibility for Information andLearning Technology. He moved to King’s College in 2000 where he has served as Head of The Department of Management andDeputy Head of the School of Social Science and Public Policy.

He has written and researched extensively in the areas of human resource management, employment relations and thepsychological contract, motivation and commitment, and careers. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of a numberof journals and a Council Member of the Tavistock Institute. He is a member of the SDO Commissioning Board and of the SectorSkill Development Agency Academic Advisory Group. He has worked closely with a range of companies including Shell, IBM,HSBC, Hong Kong MTRC, as well as with the UK National Health Service and a number of government departments.

His current research is concerned with the relationship between human resource management and performance in the privateand public sectors; the individualisation of employment relations and the role of the psychological contract; flexibility andemployment contracts; partnership at work; and the future of the career.

Michael Clinton Senior Research Associate, Department of Management, King's College London

Michael’s background lies primarily in work and organisational psychology. He has a BSc in Psychology from Leeds and an MScin Occupational Psychology from Sheffield University. He is currently completing a PhD, examining the role of uncertaintywithin contemporary employment.

Michael has been working in organisational research since 2001 at King's College London. Originally joining the NursingResearch Unit at King’s to work on a large Department of Health programme of nurses' careers, he joined the Department ofManagement in 2003. Michael has worked on a number of projects to date, including a large European study evaluating theimpact of temporary employment, projects that have examined the role of HRM in organisational performance in the bankingsector, and is currently managing a large longitudinal project measuring Human Capital in the Armed Services. Michael's otherresearch interests include the measurement of Human Resource Practices, employee well-being and performance, andadvanced statistics.

88 Kingsway

London

WC2B 6AA

T 020 7841 2814

F 020 7681 6219

E [email protected]

www.lfhe.ac.uk

ENGAGINGWITHLEADERS IN HIGHEREDUCATION

hr management - final - leadership foundation

Documents