Tag: change

  • How might HEIs and government build collaborative advantage to address climate change

    How might HEIs and government build collaborative advantage to address climate change

    • By Professor Katy Mason, PVC Dean at the University of Salford’s Business School.

    We’re at a crucial moment in our fight to address climate change, with limited time to end the irreversible damage to our planet. However, higher education institutions (HEIs) could play a more pivotal role on the road to net zero.

    Climate-related challenges are considerable and require both technological innovation and the reorganisation of our society and economy. Universities are in a strong position to drive these transitions, but because of the required pace of change, they need to do so in collaboration with government. For example, universities are well positioned to mobilise the STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) and technical expertise required to evolve the way energy is generated, stored and distributed, as well as the SHAPE and social practice expertise to support the social transitions required to transform energy production and consumption. This broad range of expertise, uniquely perhaps, sits under one organisational umbrella: the HEI.

    Reducing carbon footprint with research

    HEIs have been working, increasingly over recent years, to structure and support multi, inter and transdisciplinary research, in ways that will ultimately support the reduction of our carbon footprint to deliver net zero.

    The formation of UKRI (UK Research and Innovation) has supported many of these initiatives. In April 2018, UKRI brought together the UK’s seven research councils, Innovate UK, and Research England, into a single organisation to support the distribution of government funding for impactful, interdisciplinary research.

    Accelerating a green growth economy through collaboration

    Climate change mitigation and building the UK’s resilience to climate change impacts has been a central tenant of UKRI’s attention, with funding calls driving collaboration between academics, industry and government. But interdisciplinary research, on its own, is not enough. HEIs and government will have to find new ways of collaborating if we are to accelerate a green growth economy.

    There are examples of successful collaboration. The Government’s Open Innovation Team is a platform that supports academic-policy collaboration, curating academic expertise to support and inform policy initiatives. Similarly, the United Nations PRME (Principles of Responsible Management Education) platform supports and accelerates the sustainability of current and future business leaders in Business and Management education. However, at present, its take-up is piecemeal and patchy.  Much more collaboration is needed if we are to make a difference to climate change. 

    Recognition of the advantages afforded by collaboration is long-standing. As far back as 2000, Vangen and Huxman were developing a theory of collaborative advantage, arguing that goals, trust, culture and leadership had to be aligned enough – despite differences and tensions – if advantages were to be gained.[i] In this regard, collaboration is often inconsistent, with inherent contradictions and mutually exclusive elements caused by inevitable differences between partners. While it is these differences that often generate advantage, they require time and investment in understanding. This is perhaps why we have not invested sufficiently in making such partnerships work.

    Breaking down barriers to collaboration

    The contrasting cultures of academics and policymakers may certainty make collaboration difficult: the epistemologies-in-use (how knowledge, evidence and rigour are framed) are different; the production and use of knowledge objectives is different; and the rules of identity and belonging to the home-culture are different.

    However, as Beech et al. argue, we can take advantage of these significant cultural differences if HEIs develop a new kind of platform that acts as a learning zone in which key cultural rules of academics and policymakers are suspended (not ‘solved’).[ii] This will enable different groups to contribute and extract learning insights as if they were collaborating with shared understanding, when this may only partially be the case.

    In pursuit of creating a new kind of learning platform, HEIs, particularly those leading knowledge exchange and engagement initiatives, might usefully adopt this set of design principles:

    • Valuing difference and not seeking to resolve it;
    • Having the purpose of supporting others’ endeavors in their home-culture by providing knowledge resources;
    • Be willing to aggregate and disaggregate ideas and evidence in novel ways; and
    • Be willing to suspend judgement of the other and the self to encourage people to step outside their normal modes of interaction

    These design principles will likely help knowledge exchange leads catalyse innovation and accelerate the adoption of cutting-edge practice by bringing local, regional and national policymakers together with academics to advance solutions to overcome climate change obstacles.

    ‘Making Britain a clean energy superpower’

    Academics and policymakers are explicit in their ambition to tackle climate change. The UK Government states one of its key missions as ‘making Britain a clean energy superpower’ by ‘creating jobs, cutting bills and boosting energy security with zero-carbon electricity by 2030.’

    Driven by government monies directed towards UKRI for this purpose and by researchers’ concerns, passions, and expertise, some universities have built up significant industrial and third-sector networks to support the development and transformation of our greening economy.

    For example, researchers at Lancaster, Swansea, Imperial, and Salford have been studying the farming sector and its potential transformation through agrivoltaics. Agrivoltaics co-locate high-quality food and green energy production on the same land while simultaneously aiming to secure biodiversity net gain. This is a complex and ambitious agenda that will contribute to more than the ‘clean energy’ challenge.

    Agrivoltaics requires expertise in physics to understand solar panel efficiency, reliability and maintenance, while plant science knowledge is essential to understand food nutrition and biodiversity complexities. In addition, social science expertise is required to understand the design and transformation of the farming sector, the development of a circular economy for solar panels, and how the proliferation of markets might reconnect across the entire food and energy production and consumption systems to ensure sustainability.

    To uncover ‘what works’ will ultimately require us to collaborate with those seeking to use agrivoltaics and all those involved in solar panel production and management upstream and downstream of the supply network.

    My involvement in this project has been exciting, frustrating and demanding. I suspect that we could have significantly accelerated our impact if we had not lacked access to a platform that systematically supported policy-academic engagement. In line with our research that shows the desire and difficulty for policymakers to engage with researchers, it seems there is much more we can do, as HEIs to support this.

    [i] Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2013). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge.

    [ii] Beech, N., Mason, K. J., MacIntosh, R., & Beech, D. (2022). Learning from each other: Why and how business schools need to create a “paradox box” for academic–policy impact. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21(3), 487-502

    Source link

  • The Power of Storytelling: Women Shaping Leadership and Change

    The Power of Storytelling: Women Shaping Leadership and Change

    By Dr Monika Nangia, Academic Registrar and Director of Student & Academic Services at Durham University.

    In a world increasingly aware of the value of diversity, the role of women in leadership is more critical – and undervalued – than ever. Despite encouraging strides, women, particularly women of colour, continue to face systemic barriers to advancement. This is a story of resilience, inequity, and hope.

    The conversation around diversity and inclusion is urgent, and storytelling has emerged as one of the most potent tools to address these challenges. It connects us on a human level, fosters empathy, and confronts biases. At its best, storytelling is transformational.

    In my career, I have witnessed the transformative power of storytelling in ushering in meaningful change. The stories we carry as women – of resilience, determination, and overcoming barriers – are far more powerful than any statistic or corporate policy. These personal narratives, shared boldly, have the potential to inspire, to challenge, and to reshape how we think about leadership.

    Why We Need Women in Leadership

    The benefits of gender-diverse leadership are unequivocal. According to Deloitte’s Global Human Capital Trends, organisations with inclusive cultures achieve 2.3 times higher cash flow per employee, 1.4 times more revenue, and are 120% more capable of meeting financial targets. Diverse boards, particularly those with greater gender and ethnic representation, also demonstrate better resilience and crisis management – evident during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    But beyond numbers lies the human impact. Women leaders bring ‘cognitive diversity’, which accelerates learning and performance in complex and uncertain situations. Their leadership fosters a sense of belonging, improves employee engagement, and reduces turnover.

    Yet, despite the clear advantages, women remain underrepresented at every level of leadership.

    The “Broken Rung” and Barriers to Progress

    The journey to leadership for women is fraught with challenges. The ‘broken rung’ effect—where women are less likely than men to be hired or promoted into entry-level managerial roles – creates a bottleneck that compounds over time. For every 100 men promoted to manager, only 81 women make the same leap, with even fewer opportunities for women of colour.

    Racial inequalities exacerbate this gap. McKinsey’s 2020 report highlights that women of colour face the steepest drop-off in career advancement at the transition from middle to senior management. Cultural expectations and resistance to authority further hinder their progress.

    These systemic inequities are reflected starkly in higher education. According to the HEPI Report 2020, Mind the Gap: Gender differences in HE, while women now constitute 55% of university staff in the UK, they occupy only 29% of vice-chancellor roles. Among professors, women account for 29.7%, but Black women make up less than 1%.

    The Power of Storytelling

    Stories have a unique ability to amplify voices, challenge biases, and inspire inclusivity. Neuroscience tells us that engaging narratives release oxytocin in the brain, promoting empathy and altruistic behaviour. More than data or policy, storytelling humanises diverse experiences and catalyses change.

    I’ve seen firsthand how storytelling transforms workplaces. Women leaders who share their personal journeys of resilience and ambition inspire others to envision new possibilities. Their stories break down preconceived notions, fostering an inclusive mindset that leads to behavioural change.

    One colleague who spoke candidly about her experience being the only woman of colour in a senior leadership team. She described how, despite excelling in her role, her authority was often questioned, and she had to work twice as hard to gain the same respect as her peers.

    Her story resonated deeply, not just because of the challenges she faced, but because of the hope and strength she embodied. By sharing her experience, she is creating a ripple effect – encouraging others to speak up, address inequities, and push for change.

    Storytelling is also about accountability. In fact, it is far more important to confront the untold stories, the contributions of women whose voices have been silenced or overlooked. This is especially true for women of colour, whose experiences often fall at the intersection of gender and race-based inequities.

    Mending the ‘Broken Rung’

    A combination of stories like hers, with corresponding datasets as evidence, expose the structural barriers that continue to hold women back. The ‘broken rung’ is a vivid example of this.

    Another story that sticks with me is from a woman in higher education, who spoke about being overlooked for a leadership role despite being the most qualified candidate. She later discovered that her ambition had been perceived as ‘sharp-elbowed’ and intimidating – a stark contrast to how her male counterparts were described.

    Hearing her story compelled me to reflect on how ambition in women is often misinterpreted, reinforcing stereotypes that undermine their credibility. At a recent workshop, a senior leader shared her journey of overcoming immense personal and professional obstacles to lead a major organisational transformation. Her authenticity and vulnerability moved the room, sparking conversations about resilience, leadership, and the need for systemic change.

    Building a Legacy of Inclusive Leadership

    The path to inclusive leadership requires intentionality. It means addressing both visible and invisible barriers, from hiring practices to cultural attitudes. The stories we share today will shape the leadership landscape of tomorrow. As women, we have the opportunity – and the responsibility – to use our narratives to drive change.

    Organisations with diverse leadership teams outperform their peers not just financially but also in innovation and problem-solving. The evidence is clear: diversity is not just a moral imperative – it is a strategic advantage. But the true value of diversity goes beyond metrics. It’s about creating workplaces where everyone feels they belong, where their contributions are valued, and where they can thrive.

    Source link

  • Nils Gilman on Trump’s coming assault on universities (Matthew Sheffield, Theory of Change)

    Nils Gilman on Trump’s coming assault on universities (Matthew Sheffield, Theory of Change)

    The second term of Donald Trump has officially begun, but despite all the things he’s unveiled in the past several weeks, we don’t know fully what his policies are going to be over the next four years. 

    That is in part because Trump himself is a very erratic figure who says things that are nonsensical, even by his own standards. And also because while there are documents such as Project 2025 which were created by Trump’s ideological allies in the reactionary movement, that document itself is not particularly detailed in a number of ways.

    But one thing we can be sure is going to happen in the second Trump administration is that he will conduct a full-scale assault on America’s colleges and universities. As a candidate, he did promise to create taxes on private university endowments. And he also talked about removing the funding for universities that don’t bow to his various censorship demands.

    Unlike a number of other Trumpian boasts and threats, he is very likely to follow through on these ones because Republicans in a number of states and localities have enacted many of the policies that Trump has talked about doing on the campaign trail.

    Joining me today to talk about all this is Nils Gilman, a friend of the show who is the chief operating officer at the Berggruen Institute, a think tank in Southern California that publishes Noema Magazine. He is also the former associate chancellor at the University of California, Berkeley, where he saw first-hand just what the [00:02:00] Republican vision for education in the United States is. He’s also the co-author of a new book called Children of a Modest Star, which we discuss at the end of the episode.
       

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Change is our ally by Professor Sir Chris Husbands

    WEEKEND READING: Change is our ally by Professor Sir Chris Husbands

    This blog has been kindly written for HEPI by Professor Sir Chris Husbands, who was Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University between 2016 and 2023, and is now a Director of  Higher Futures, working with university leaders to lead sustainable solutions to institutional challenges.

    The scale of the funding challenge in higher education is widely known, though almost every week brings news of fresh challenges and responses. Real term funding for undergraduate teaching in 2025 is close to 1997 levels – levels which led the Blair government to introduce £1,000 top-up fees. Some commentators have argued that the scale of the challenge now is as great as the 1981 cuts in government funding for universities, which reduced spending on universities by 15%, and saw Salford University lose 44% of its income.

    As contemporary funding challenges have intensified, growth options have become more difficult:

    • international student numbers have either stalled or declined;
    • undergraduate growth, although evident, has not tracked demographic trends;
    • the Office for Students has identified persistent optimism bias in the sector’s funding projections; and
    • competitive pressures are multiplying.

    In many countries, flexible for-profit providers are growing fast, especially in professional and post-graduate education. Many of these are backed by funds with deep investment pockets; some UK for-profit providers are growing very quickly and the expansion of private provision in Germany, France and Canada has been remarkable. In summary, the funding challenge is not only real but increasingly profound.

    Institutional responses to these challenges have been extensive. Almost all universities are now undertaking significant change programmes. There have been major strides in revising operating models, especially for professional and support services, and the impact has been significant. On the other hand, although portfolio reviews are widespread, there have been fewer developments in reshaping business models for teaching and research, though some do exist. Core delivery arrangements largely remain based on a two-semester or three-term model. Staff-student ratios which, as the King’s College Vice-Chancellor Shitij Kapur has repeatedly emphasised are low by international standards, have not been significantly shifted. Undergraduate study remains relatively inflexible. Module sharing and simplified credit transfer arrangements remain small scale. Estate use has not been significantly intensified. All this suggests that individual institutions are finding it difficult to look at the challenge strategically with an eye to the longer term shape, size, structure and nature of the university. There is a lot happening in individual change plans, but probably not enough. Without a secure and sustainable core academic model, institutions will be forced into repeated restructurings, which will not be comfortable for them or for the sector more generally.  

    This is the background to the important Jisc-KPMG report Collaboration for a sustainable future, which was the subject of a this week’s HEPI / Jisc webinar. For all the evidence of individual institutional change, the report argues that a collaborative approach is needed to secure sustainability and reshape the sector. Institutions need to find ways to work together, in back-office functions, in professional services and perhaps in academic delivery. The report acknowledges that there are technical difficulties to overcome, including the requirement to pay VAT on shared services and the need to navigate competition law, though these need to be genuinely tested in practice, but it also argues that the deeper barriers to effective collaboration are cultural. 

    The ingrained habit of individual autonomy, even and perhaps especially in non-competitive services (as Nick Hillman reinforced, no one chooses their undergraduate degree based on the university’s finance system) is a major barrier to significant change.  Moreover, the report acknowledges that collaboration and shared service arrangements are unlikely to deliver cost savings in the short-term – and just now a good deal of thinking in the sector seems to be shaped by Keynes’ dictum that ‘in the long-run we are all dead’. Institutions are caught between the economic realities of the funding challenge and the cultural challenges of collaboration.

    In Four Futures, my HEPI paper published in June last year, I argued that the financial and funding circumstances which produced the sector we have no longer exist. Government is unwilling or unable to pay for the sector most university leaders would like. I argued that there were some policy choices for higher education, and that the sector will almost certainly be different in the future. There are public policy questions here, but there are also questions and challenges for institutions. That means strategic choices for leaders, with universities being much clearer about the things they can do well, and do well sustainably, and building different relationships with other institutions. Leadership matters. As the Jisc / KPMG report observes:

    Given the current trajectory, there is a window of opportunity for institutions to act now and help drive this forward before they are compelled into action by necessity.

    Competition over the past decade has undoubtedly delivered benefits, and we should not understate those, especially in estate investment, student experience, teaching quality and research performance. But competition has also delivered homogeneity, duplication and overlap, and that needs to change.   And for that, as the Jisc / KPMG report identifies, the leadership culture needs to change. Hyper-competitiveness has driven institutionally focused leadership behaviours and associated performance indicators, targets and rewards. But there have been different leadership assumptions in higher education in the past, and other sectors have grappled with the challenge of changing leadership culture. The most successful school improvement initiative of the past generation was London Challenge, in which the performance of schools across the capital was significantly raised. One of the most important shifts was a cultural one, persuading headteachers to think not about ‘my school’ but about ‘[all] our children’: success across the system was a leadership challenge for all.

    The Jisc / KPMG Report is strong on the potential for collaboration to shape the future of the system, though it also makes painful reading on the challenges which have bedevilled this in the past. In the current context, government is unlikely to provide additional funding. The private sector could no doubt provide standardised sector-wide services, but the risks of a single supplier for key services are enormous. If government is not the solution, if the private sector is not the solution, if the status quo is not sustainable, the answer must be imaginative and engaged leadership which is not simply about ‘my institution’ but also about ‘our future’.

    This week’s HEPI / Jisc webinar on ‘Competition or collaboration? Opportunities for the future of the higher education sector’ can be watched back here.

    Source link

  • How to Build a Dynamic Student Enrollment Plan That Thrives Amid Change

    How to Build a Dynamic Student Enrollment Plan That Thrives Amid Change

    Key Takeaways:

    • Evolving student enrollment strategies require proactive, data-informed approaches that adapt to demographic shifts, economic pressures, and market dynamics.
    • Real-time metrics and prescriptive analytics enable institutions to refine recruitment strategies, address challenges quickly, and optimize enrollment outcomes.
    • Flexible tools and predictive modeling help mitigate disruptions, align team efforts, and support personalized student engagement.
    • Continuous refinement ensures institutions can navigate uncertainties, maintain competitive student enrollment plans, and prepare for future challenges.

    Higher education is in constant flux, primarily driven by student demographic shifts, economic pressures, and rapid technological advancements. For institutions to stay competitive in this environment, student enrollment strategies must evolve. By embracing a consistent, data-informed, and adaptable enrollment management approach, institutions can navigate current and unforeseen uncertainties and meet their enrollment goals.

    A Forward-Looking Approach to Enrollment Strategies

    Traditional enrollment strategies often rely on rearview analyses, evaluating successes and missteps only at the end of an enrollment cycle. However, the dynamic nature of student recruitment today demands a more proactive approach. Institutions must adopt prescriptive analytics to “look through the windshield,” using real-time data to understand how current strategies are performing and make adjustments on the fly. This forward-thinking approach allows enrollment managers to:

    • Identify what is working and what needs refinement during the current recruitment cycle.
    • Test potential strategies against historical data to predict their effectiveness before implementation.
    • Address emerging challenges quickly, such as unexpected FAFSA delays or shifts in application behavior.
    • Develop broad tactics to adapt to changes throughout the enrollment cycle as well as adjust to shifting dynamics with individual students.

    Such adaptability requires not just access to the right data but also the tools and expertise to act on it effectively. The combination of robust technology platforms, such as Liaison’s predictive analytics tool Othot, and experienced partners who understand the nuances of higher education can make all the difference. By integrating analytics and expert guidance, institutions can respond to challenges with precision and agility.

    Data-Informed Metrics for Strategic Refinement

    To optimize their student enrollment plans, institutions must evaluate specific metrics at each stage of the recruitment process. This means aligning data evaluation with the student journey, focusing on key performance indicators (KPIs) that matter most at each stage:

    · Search phase | Metrics such as inquiry volume, lead conversion rates, and source effectiveness provide insight into initial interest in the institution and the success of outreach efforts.

    · Application phase | Metrics such as application volume, completion rates, and demographic trends help institutions understand the reach and appeal of their efforts.

    · Yield phase | Yield rates and admitted student feedback provide insights into how students perceive the institution’s value.

    · Enrollment phase | Deposit rates and engagement tracking reveal which admitted students are likely to matriculate, enabling targeted follow-ups.

    Different variables also emerge during the cycle that require immediate action. For example, when unexpected disruptions such as a sudden change in application deadlines or a major shift in funding policies occur, enrollment leaders must have the tools and knowledge to not only pivot their strategies to address the issues at hand but also effectively predict the results of those changing approaches in real-time. This requires a flexible data infrastructure that can accommodate real-time adjustments.

    Overcoming Challenges Through Continuous Adaptation

    Flexibility is a nonnegotiable trait for enrollment management teams. The new realities of a post-pandemic world, declining high school graduating classes, and a highly competitive marketplace are significantly challenging existing strategies. The pressure to meet enrollment goals often comes with internal changes—such as staff turnover or shifts in leadership priorities—and external pressures like economic downturns or new legislation.

    • Turnover and continuity | Staff turnover can disrupt institutional momentum, particularly when strategies are person-dependent rather than system-driven. Tools such as Othot provide consistency by embedding critical data insights and processes into the institution’s framework, reducing the impact of turnover and fostering a culture of data-informed decision-making.
    • Adapting to unexpected variables | Challenges like sudden changes in funding or board directives require immediate adjustments. By leveraging “what-if” scenario modeling, institutions can simulate the impact of potential changes and make informed decisions quickly.

    Strategies to Increase Student Enrollment

    Strategic flexibility can make the difference between hitting enrollment targets and falling short. Institutions can take several steps to continuously refine their strategies:

    1. Monitor trends in real-time | Stay ahead of shifts in student behavior by regularly reviewing metrics such as engagement rates, application trends, and deposit patterns.

    2. Incorporate scenario planning | Use predictive tools to simulate how changes in funding, messaging, or outreach might impact enrollment outcomes.

    3. Align collaboration across teams | Align data and strategy efforts across departments to create a unified approach to enrollment management.

    4. Personalize student engagement | Tailor communication based on individual student data, ensuring that messaging resonates with their unique needs and interests.

    By integrating these strategies into their student enrollment plans, institutions can adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining a steady focus on meeting their overall long-term enrollment goals.

    Staying Ahead in a Dynamic Environment

    Continuous refinement isn’t just about meeting immediate needs—it’s about preparing for the future. Institutions that embrace adaptability, leverage data strategically, and invest in both technology and expertise are better positioned to succeed in today’s competitive higher education market.

    Whether it’s managing the challenges of staff turnover, responding to external pressures, aligning all your enrollment tools at hand, or identifying the most effective ways to engage prospective students, institutions must prioritize flexibility and innovation.

    With Liaison’s advanced tools and expert partnership, institutions can confidently navigate the complexities of data-driven enrollment management and set the stage for sustained success. Contact us today to get started.

    About the Author

    Craig Cornell is the Vice President for Enrollment Strategy at Liaison. In that capacity, he oversees a team of enrollment strategists and brings best practices, consultation, and data trends to campuses across the country in all things enrollment management. Craig also serves as the dedicated resource to NASH (National Association of Higher Education Systems) and works closely with the higher education system that Liaison supports. Before joining Liaison in 2023, Craig served for over 30 years in multiple higher education executive enrollment management positions. During his tenure, the campuses he served often received national recognition for enrollment growth, effective financial aid leveraging, marketing enhancements, and innovative enrollment strategies.

    Source link

  • Positive change for disabled researchers might need managing and leading

    Positive change for disabled researchers might need managing and leading

    Among the university initiatives which aim to amplify traditionally marginalised voices, disabled researchers are now throwing their metaphorical hats into the ring.

    I am a member of a disabled researchers’ network and in a recent meeting, the question we asked ourselves were central to the raison d’être of the group.

    How do we position ourselves? How do we manage the strength that comes with having a diverse group, while ensuring that all voices are heard equally? And – perhaps most crucially – what are the positive outcomes towards which we can orientate our group and our activities, within the existing structures?

    Perhaps thinking about this via the lens of the overused yet helpful notion of “leadership and management” could help to clarify the tensions and dichotomies facing disabled students and inform next steps.

    Vital functions

    Leadership and management have separate and “vital functions” within any organisation – management is focused on efficient and reliable operations day-to-day, while leadership drives an organisation into the future.

    These two concepts, so often put together and both crucial for an organisation to flourish, in some ways work against each other – as Professor Tony Bush explains,

    Managerial leadership is focused on managing existing activities successfully rather than visioning a better future.

    “Management” inevitably involves some element of instinctive resistance to change which threatens to destabilise routines and known outcomes. In my experience and from the personal anecdotes of disabled colleagues, it is apparent that we have experienced inflexibility in processes and resistance to adjustments which would have facilitated our research activities.

    Maybe at least some of this resistance comes from a fear that equilibrium would be disrupted; giving the benefit of the doubt seems helpful in avoiding the “us” and “them” stance which is an obstacle to positive collaboration and moving beyond the past to the desired future.

    The reality is that this is difficult to navigate. When our voice is an unexpected interruption, when the thorny issue of inclusive practices is raised, relationships can be affected. How can we lead the research environment within HE towards being more truly inclusive without ruffling too many feathers?

    Leadership demands the flexibility to move towards future aims, or in the words of Roselinde Torres, being:

    …courageous enough to abandon a practice that has made you successful in the past.

    While we might not want the HE sector to “abandon” all current practices, it is apparent that change is needed to ensure true equality of access and opportunity. A model of “success” which marginalises disabled researchers is not true success; our argument is difficult to refute, and I’m sure nobody would openly do so.

    However, agreement in principle is not the same as action in practice.

    Fine by me

    Everyone readily agrees with the idea of an inclusive research environment; but not everyone is proactively engaged in making this a reality, particularly when it disrupts the status quo.

    Perhaps the crucial difference in perspective between the manager and the leader is that of immediate deliverables versus long-term strategic outcomes; and perhaps this can be used to consider the collective in the wider context of the university.

    As disabled researchers, we are our own “leaders”; a label we may not seek out or desire, but which nonetheless can be seen in our daily activities, thought processes and planning.

    We have to think ahead, mitigating barriers which non-disabled researchers simply do not have to navigate; and this difference is nobody’s fault, but it is useful to be aware of it in this discussion. This art of looking ahead is identified by Torres as one of the necessary traits for effective leadership; she explains:

    “Great leaders are not head-down. They see around corners, shaping their future, not just reacting to it.

    My point isn’t to suggest that disabled researchers are somehow better leaders than their non- disabled colleagues; but we have developed certain characteristics out of sheer necessity. As disabled researchers, indeed disabled individuals, we have to “lead” from the outset to overcome the barriers which are our daily reality.

    Encountering barriers

    We may face the uncertainty which comes with managing a chronic, long-term condition which dictates whether we are well enough to work on a specific date, at a specific time, and over which we have no control. For me, my modus operandi is to work ahead of every deadline – often perceived as being over-competitive – because I know that I may suddenly be forced into a work hiatus which, without this buffer, would put me behind.

    We may encounter access issues – workspaces, and transport to those workspaces, which do not meet our most basic needs. Physical barriers – often assumed to be the most readily addressed – still exist. We may need to call ahead to ensure that we can simply get into the room – let alone have a seat at the table. In 2024, it feels like we should be further along than this.

    As disabled researchers, in work and in life, we are in strategy mode constantly; looking ahead around every corner; planning for the next barrier we need to demolish if we are to continue moving forward.

    We are forced to strategize – even when we don’t want to. Therein, perhaps, lies the rub.

    Because we are proactive in reducing our barriers, we have an expectation or at the very least a hope that our colleagues, managers and in the broadest sense our employers will adopt the same stance.

    When this is reduced to box-ticking exercises rather than a meaningful, consultative approach, this damages morale. When we must ask for adjustments – sometimes more than once – resentment builds; and if adjustments are promised then not delivered, relationships can suffer irrevocable damage.

    We lead because we have to

    Yet we continue to “lead” on this out of necessity; our voices are loudest on these issues for the simple reason that it impacts us the most, especially when organisations don’t get it right. From the discussions we’ve had within our network, I know that this can be a lonely experience, with researchers feeling marginalised, unable to voice their concerns to a listening ear, and finding that speaking out can result in feeling left out.

    So how can we move collectively towards change? Perhaps we can take inspiration from the eight-step change model proposed by leading business consultant John Kotter. Here, a structured approach is described which will move a workforce collectively towards change.

    Perhaps one of the most useful elements of Kotter’s framework is Step 2: “Build a guiding coalition”. What does this mean? It means that individuals of influence and power within an organisation need to be involved in change, or it may be rejected. This is a viable model: disabled researchers partnering with stakeholders across the sector to promote our vision of a fairer, more equitable research environment where lived experience is valued and the need for a continuous programme of improvement is recognised.

    When all is said and done, this isn’t really a radical proposition. There are outcomes we want to achieve, and we need partners to achieve them. We need our voice to be heard at a strategic level. We need champions for inclusion to be nominated across the HE sectors, with a clear remit to work with disabled researchers to enact meaningful change. Activism isn’t incompatible with collaborative working any more than research is.

    Both activism and research address a need, a gap in knowledge, a difficult dilemma, or an important issue, and ask the question: how can we do better, and why aren’t we doing better? This then leads to the next research question…and the next… and the next… and so ad infinitum.

    There is no limit to how much we can learn or improve, and there should be no end to our willingness to keep learning and improving. This is surely integral to the whole ethos of higher education. We need to have open communication; create opportunities for conversations which might be challenging; and cultivate curiosity about how we can better understand one another and facilitate inclusive working environments.

    Even in the most highly competitive business arenas, research has shown that a work culture which prioritises “psychological safety” – an environment where individuals feel secure enough to share their perspectives, both positive and negative – is the gold standard for employee productivity and happiness at work.

    A recent study involving the work-life balance and happiness of women working in the financial sector concluded that:

    …having diverse teams that can be honest allows for better outcomes.

    At the heart of the change we are seeking is simply the opportunity to be honest in an environment which encourages this. So let’s blur the boundary between leadership and management; let’s have honest, if sometimes challenging, conversations; and let’s embark on this journey together.

    Source link

  • Universities and the Teachers Pension Scheme: the time for change is now

    Universities and the Teachers Pension Scheme: the time for change is now

    Welcome back. The HEPI blog is now up and running again on a daily basis, landing in your inbox at 6:30am. (The pieces we ran over the break are available here.) If you are not already subscribed, you can sign up at the bottom of this page.

    Spaces are still open for our in-person Symposium with CBDU on Thursday 16th January: you can register here.

    Today’s piece is by Jane Embley, Chief People Officer, Northumbria University and Professor Tom Lawson, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Provost, Northumbria University.

    The end of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) pensions dispute in the summer of 2023 was the source of much relief in the sector. University employees in the scheme saw both their pension benefits restored to the levels they had been before the USS valuation of 2017 and a reduction in their contributions (from January 2024) from 9.8% to 6.1%. Employers could reverse the significant liabilities that had previously been skewing their financial statements and their contributions to USS were reduced from 21.6% to 14.5%. The Financial Times declared that ‘the cost to UK universities of providing pensions for employees is poised to fall by hundreds of millions of pounds after the sector’s main retirement plan swung into surplus after more than a decade of being in deficit’.

    But for many institutions the great pensions crisis was not over: indeed it had only just begun. For at least 80 universities, USS is not their main pension scheme, because those that gained university status through the 1992 Higher Education Act are required to offer Teachers Pension Scheme (TPS) to their academic staff. This includes institutions like Northumbria University, which has significantly developed its research intensity over the last decade and seeks to compete with other research intensives. The disparity in the costs of TPS and USS means that competition is no longer on a level playing field.

    Northumbria has more than 200 staff who are members of USS, but all of those have joined the university as existing members of that scheme. All other academic colleagues must be enrolled in TPS and cannot, at present, voluntarily become members of USS. Indeed those who join as members of USS also retain a right to be enrolled in TPS if they wish. Around 50 modern institutions employ some members of USS however the underlying requirement to make TPS available to university-employed academic staff is the same.

    Since 2023 the cost of TPS to both employees and employers has significantly diverged from USS. While employers’ contributions to the two schemes tracked one another closely until October 2019, they then began to diverge radically when TPS employer contributions rose to 23.68% while USS was at 21.1%. But in April 2024 the gulf between the two schemes became a chasm – TPS contributions rose by 5% to 28.68% as USS employer contributions went down to 14.5%.

    The difference in percentage terms is stark. But when you start to think about the financial cost for institutions it is all the more so. The pension cost (to employers) for a typical academic salary of £57,500 is £8,300 per annum for USS. For a TPS employee, it is £16,500. At an institutional level that means that for every 1000 staff earning this salary in TPS, the annual cost is £8.2 million greater than if those same employees were members of USS. For a professor earning £85,000 the difference is as much as £12,000 per full-time colleague. As Northumbria’s experience shows, these are additional costs being carried in one part of the sector for essentially the same staff.

    The situation is compounded by the nature of TPS as a scheme. Unlike USS, employers have no say in how the TPS is run and have no levers to keep employer (and indeed employee) contributions down. This is simply a cost handed down to universities by the Treasury. But unlike schools, to which the Treasury through the Department for Education provides additional funding to cover TPS cost increases, universities receive no relief and simply have to absorb these costs into their already stretched budgets. And unlike schools in the independent sector, which were permitted to stop offering TPS to new staff, universities are obliged to continue to offer TPS – whatever alternatives they can develop for their staff.

    The impact of this is extraordinary. It essentially means that in one part of the sector, it costs employers the same amount in on-costs to employ 503 staff as it costs to employ 1000 staff elsewhere. Quite apart from the burden this places on institutions, it is deeply anti-competitive.

    What then is to be done? The path forward is beset by problems. Unless there is legislative change, modern universities will be required to continue to make TPS available to all academic colleagues and, it bears repeating, will continue to have no say at all in the running of the scheme.  

    Of course, one option is to do nothing, but the finances of the sector mean the status quo is extraordinarily difficult to justify. Doing nothing embeds an unfairness that makes the government’s stated priorities for university reform more difficult to achieve. To put it crudely, it costs more for some institutions than others to employ academic staff, and as that resource is derived (at least in part) from student fee income then those institutions will require more students to fund the salaries of staff. For every 1000 staff earning £57,500 it would require all of the fees from 859 additional UK undergraduate students just to fund the difference in employer pension contributions.

    Institutions can employ new colleagues via subsidiary companies in order to give themselves the freedom to offer more affordable pensions to new employees. But this approach has many potential pitfalls. It would not help to reduce the costs in relation to existing staff, so would be slow to have any impact, and in any case it remains unclear what the status of such employees is according to HESA – which could among other things impact the ability of individuals to make a contribution to future REF exercises with the attendant implications for future funding. Employment through a subsidiary, even with all terms and conditions being the same but being out of scope for recognition within the REF, is also likely to be a less attractive prospect for employees.

    It seems likely that until solutions are found, many institutions might find themselves having to rethink their ability to participate in national collective pay bargaining. With higher pension costs and higher National Insurance contributions, it may be necessary, for now at least, for institutions to take control of salary increases to contain the total costs of employment. This is not an attractive option, but it is hard to think of any others that would be as swift and effective in containing cost increases, although of course it would come with its own industrial relations challenges.  

    Ultimately all institutions value their academic staff immensely and we want to provide access to attractive pension schemes. However, the lack of institutional control over which pension scheme can be offered, and the high, fixed nature of the employer contribution to TPS (which is not directly linked to any improvement in benefits for the individual) cannot be sustained. The timing of the current challenge could also not be worse. Institutions are grappling with a whole range of financial pressures, and as a consequence dealing with TPS remains in the ‘too hard’ box for many, not least because we genuinely cannot find the solutions without some form of intervention. But as the sustainability of institutions becomes all the more scrutinised, and as the sector needs to find financial efficiencies to address the concerns expressed by the Secretary of State for Education earlier in 2024, we do urgently need to find a way forward.

    Obliging institutions to continue to offer TPS places greater financial constraints on precisely those universities that might do the most to widen access and give greater opportunity to those from disadvantaged backgrounds as per the government’s priorities. It is an obvious unfairness that some of students will go to institutions where it is substantially more expensive to employ staff than in other institutions that are more traditionally regarded as elite. The time is now to remove this inbuilt, and presumably unintended, unfairness and end the obligation upon modern universities to offer TPS. If that happens individual institutions and the sector as a whole can begin to chart a path to a more sustainable position in the future.

    Source link