Slide 1

Underpinning Excellence in Higher Education

∂

Project Focus

Slide 2

Performance Management

Metrics & Measures

Investment in People,

Training & Development

L.G.M

What is the link between individual/team behaviours and

departmental performance?

∂

Background and Aim

Slide 3

Aim: Identify the key performance attributes, attitudes,

behaviours and competencies evident within high achieving

academic departments or units.

Underpinning principle: leadership, governance and

management behaviours are essential for success.

Outcome: a toolkit which enables academic

departments/units to benchmark LGM behaviours against

high achieving departments and to suggest areas for

improvement

∂

Uses of the toolkit

Slide 4

Current Heads of Department assess their own behaviour and the

behaviours across the Department relative to some of the best

academic units in the UK

Incoming Heads of Department consider what they might do to

improve academic performance in the shortest time.

∂ 

Collaborators

Slide 5

∂

Defining Success – League Tables Times Good University Guide

Slide 6

RAE data

NSS data

Entry standards

Graduate prospects

High performance over three years or rapid improvement over three years

∂

Project Methodology

Slide 7

Stage 2 Data GatheringMarch 2010 – Jan 2011

Stage 1PreparationOct 2009—Feb 2010

Phase 1 – Preliminary QuestionnairesPhase 2 – InterviewsPhase 3 – Survey

Stage 3Toolkit DevelopmentFeb 2011 – Sept 2011

Stage 4Development Sept 2011 – Oct 2011

Stage 5DisseminationOct 2011- Dec 2011

∂

Data Gathering

Slide 8

Open questions Based on McKinsey 7SRange of staff in successful depts

Critical case sampling

In-depth discussion

Define key features of successful deptsTest out on a wide range of depts Fixed-response questionnaire

Prelim questionnaire

Interviews

Survey

∂

Findings – Phase 1

Slide 9

Name Sources ReferencesExcellence 74 91Strategy 73 121Leadership 67 91Supportive 65 85Departmental Dynamics 64 84Communication 61 78Reward systems and performance review 61 66Shared Values - Teaching and Research 53 53Committee 53 86Collegial and Collegiate 51 82Top-down 49 52Budgeting & Finances 42 46Alignment of direction, strategy 42 49Staffing 41 49Well coordinated 39 41Open decision making 31 32Shared goals 27 30Teamwork 24 32Mentoring 16 16Student Satisfaction 15 15Technology 13 13Commitment 13 14Transparency 12 13Autonomy 12 13Well discussed 12 12Workload model 12 12External Forces 11 12Open door policy 11 12Pressures 9 10

∂

Incorporation into Phase 2

Slide 10

The key findings from Phase 1 were incorporated into the interview phase.

An interview question list was developed around the major themes.

LeadershipLeadershipGood managersLeadership roleLeadership trainingGood leadershipTop-down leadershipLeadership role importantLeadership in teaching and researchGood Head leadershipGood engagementNot always the best decisionProactiveLead by exampleApproach?Consultation

Good and clear

Can be improveddepartmental communicationConstant communicationInternal communicationsTechnology updates?decision making relatedCommunication of strategyInformal discussions, social roomsGroup meetings

CommunicationCommunication

∂

Findings – Phase 2

Slide 11

Name Sources References

Budgeting and Funding 31 62

Central services (Positive and Negative) 29 78

Collegiality 28 43

HOD Traits 26 79

Room for improvement 24 78

Teaching 23 39

Department size 20 38

Reward systems (Formal and Informal) 22 48

Supportive Informal networks – importance Training and Support

191210

321613

Department structure Coordination-positive aspects

1811

3319

Definition of excellence 17 24

Performance review 17 23

Shared values 13 20

Informal networks-importance 12 16

Mentoring Scheme 11 15

Shared goals 11 15

Good support services 10 16

∂

Findings

Slide 12

∂

Leadership

Slide 13

“I know that from experience, I go up there (his office) and there are members

of academic staff in with him and they just turn up and ask to have a chat with

him so yeah I think it's quite good”

“the Head of Department was very hands on, he wanted to speak to the staff

and make sure everybody was happy with the way things were going, so

there was more of a discussion“

"Yes I think we've become a more top down department and again I'm sure

opinions will differ as to whether that is a good or a bad thing but it has meant

that things can happen, decisions can be taken much more rapidly than

kicking them around endlessly at board's of studies”

Approachable

Leadership

Hands on

Individual Style

Changing Styles

Receptive

Top-down

Personality

Staff Involvement

Informal Approach

Consultative Decision Making

Trust

∂∂

Phase 3

• Closed response questionnaire• Expanded to a larger range of departments to

examine findings so far• Departments wide ranging in terms of position

in league table

Slide 14

∂

Slide 15

FindingsPhase 3

Change Management

Communication

Rewards

Leadership

Research & Teaching

Departmental Dynamics

and Culture

Direction, Strategy &

Shared Values

Staffing

Underpinning Excellence in HEKey factors for

success

∂∂

Toolkit Design

Slide 16

Input

Short self-assessment

questionnaire with fixed-response

questions

Output 1

Report on areas of strength and

weakness

Output 2

Related resources, links to further

information

System compares self-

assessment results to

project findings

Demonstration

∂∂

Toolkit

Slide 18

∂∂

Toolkit Design

Slide 19

Input

Short self-assessment

questionnaire with fixed-response

questions

Output 1

Report on areas of strength and

weakness

Output 2

Related resources, links to further

information

System compares self-

assessment results to

project findings

∂

Case Study

1. What are the key issues for this department?

2. What advice, from a staff development perspective, would you give the Head of Department regarding the outcomes shown in the report?

3. How could “staff development” help to facilitate the improvements needed by this department?

4. If academic departments are using this tool how could you support its use?

∂

Analysis

Slide 21