6 The assessment of managerial effectiveness at...

6

The assessment of managerial effectiveness at universities

in developing countries: a case analysis

H . R . Kells

The assessment of managerial effectiveness at universities in developing countries: a case analysis

Issues and methodologies in educational development: an H E P series for orientation and training

This paper is published within the framework of the 1 Ш Р research project on 'Improving managerial effectiveness in institutions of higher education'

directed by Bikas C . Sanyal

T h e assessment of managerial effectiveness at universities in

developing countries: a case analysis

H . R . Kells

International Institute for Educational Planning (Established by U N E S C O )

The views and opinions expressed in this volume are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of U N E S C O or of the 1 Ш Р . The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of U N E S C O or IffiP concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries.

The publication costs of this document have been covered through a grant-in-aid offered by U N E S C O and by voluntary contributions m a d e by several M e m b e r States of U N E S C O , the list of which will be found on the last page of this document.

This volume has been typeset using IffiP's computer facilities and has been printed in IffiP's printshop.

International Institute for Educational Planning 7 - 9 rue Eugène-Delacroix, 75116 Paris

© U N E S C O November 1991

Contents

Acknowledgements vi

The context 2

The assessment of management effectiveness: a case example 3

Context for the study 3

The design of the study process 4

Appendix A : The review of the effectiveness of management processes 7

Appendix B : Framework for the review of the effectiveness of management 8

Appendix C : Document analysis form 15

Appendix D : Interview format 20

Appendix E : Survey instrument 22

v

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the British Council in waiving British citizenship requirements for the link visit and for travel expenses contributions and the contributions of the m a n y faculty and administrative leaders at 'Our University', w h o shared freely with m e as they explored the future. However , readers should realize that the opinions expressed in this article are mine alone, and I a m fully responsible for them. I want to thank Lene Buchert for her m a n y suggestions and considerable assistance.

vi

The assessment of managerial effectiveness at universities in developing countries: a case analysis

H . R . Kells1

T h e universities of developing countries are institutions operating under great stress. Often burdened with almost hyperbolically stated purposes, greatly heightened governmental and other public expectations, funding levels that provide but a fraction of their needs, and the most difficult conditions for teaching, they increasingly seek help from donor agencies and commercial interests. Donor support is needed and greatly appreciated by these critically important institutions. However , donor agencies m a y also m a k e further demands upon the already overtaxed universities. It is not an unfamiliar circumstance to see patterns of goal displacement resulting from the creation of donor-stimulated programmes on 'soft' m o n e y with little hope of permanent funding, thus further displacing the possibility to fund properly and perform effectively the core programmes and services of the institution. Certain agencies also require that major restructuring of the countries funding system be initiated in order to qualify for aid. Most recently, some of the donor agencies and the governments of the countries concerned have begun to ask for improvements in the management practices of the universities and for particular efforts at increased cost efficiency and cost recovery. While these requests are understandable given that costs and enrolments have been rising, expensive models of residential education and administrative practice do exist (usually having been initiated or stimulated by colonial governments) and that funds available for education have been decreasing, it is difficult, despite the willingness of most university leaders (British Council, 1990), for the greatly underfunded and overburdened developing institutions to be more efficient, to raise fees and to use ostensibly unused talent and capacity to raise non-governmental funds. A s part of all this, the familiar pattern of donor agency inspection teams m a y be extended to cover the matter of the effectiveness of university management and the universities in developing countries will be asked to respond.

W h a t will be presented in this paper is an analysis of this situation, an argument for self-assessment of their management by the universities in developing countries and a framework and methodology to carry out such an assessment built on the realities of the developing world. The experiences of one, well-known university in Africa that in early 1991 conducted such a process are reported ~ anonymously in deference to the wishes of the University leaders, and also to enable the reader to focus entirely on the process of study, not the problems of a specific place. The university is hereafter referred to in this monograph as 'Our University'(OU).

I . H . R . Kells is Visiting Professor at the Centre for Higher Education Management at Danbury Park, Chelmsford, United Kingdom and a consultant residing in Copenhagen. For three months in early 1991, he was a links visitor in Africa sponsored by the British Council.

1

T h e assessment of managerial effectiveness at universities in developing countries

T h e Context

A n y study of the effectiveness of management in a university, as well as any investigation of or pressure for cost efficiency or more entrepreneurial behaviour, must be seen in light of the fundamental conditions of institutional life. Most current proposals for cost savings and initiatives to commercialize the talent and resources of developing institutions were born in and, to the extent they have succeeded, have existed in the developed world where salaries are high and libraries full, where equipment and supplies are generally adequate and where slack exists in the organization. A critical mass of available talent and resources exists from which up to a point, at least, one can wring cost savings and with which one can conduct fruitful applied research, professional training ventures, even exploitation of n e w inventions. In short, the possibility to replace government income with private income exists to some extent in these settings, albeit a realistic analyses of U S and United Kingdom efforts in this regard yield a far less optimistic accounting on such matters than the politicians and industrial liaison officers predicted. There is a set of natural limits to such efforts, even in the developed world (Kells,1989).

W h e n one considers the developing universities, in some ways the calls for cost efficiency and entrepreneurialism fly in the face of the institution's realities. Consider the following:

1. Critical masses of talent and funds usually do not exist in such universities that would enable cost savings or further exploitation of talent. Academics with long hours and heavy loads have little time to sell their talent. Cost savings through computers and mechanized methods require large initial investment in equipment and costly training. T o save, then, one must first invest. Labour intensive methods by low paid administrators m a y seem foolish to visiting experts, but the developing universities rarely have the capital to invest in machines or well trained talent at higher salary levels. A simple 'one shot', injection of funds to buy equipment for which trained users are scarce, that is hard to maintain in the South and to amortize without adequate budgets is not a good solution. M o r e fundamental changes and types of support are needed.

2 . A m o n g what are greatly varied institutional conditions, two basic types of universities exist in the developing countries: (a) the universities with extremely low salaries that are, in effect, organizations of part-time professors, w h o must spend most of their time in second jobs or farming in order to support their families (salaries of $100 or less per month that meet perhaps 25 per cent of basic support needs); and (b) universities that m a y be relatively impoverished but that can afford to pay a living wage to the teachers and administrators. While each group m a y not be ideal situations for cost efficiency efforts, surely the 'part-time' group cannot easily be coerced into the recommended entrepreneurial schemes. Indeed, their staff are already entrepreneurial, personally, in order to survive.

It is in this context that one must consider the generally useful notion of assessing management effectiveness. Such assessments and other recommendations for price changes, cost efficiency and recovery must recognize the realities of life in these institutions, and must be conducted or pursued with due priority to very basic matters. These notions are at the heart of the method to be described. While it is certainly possible to find ways to m a k e things run more smoothly or even cost a bit less in developing institutions, and studies of the

2


management situation can yield such suggestions, attaining major efficiencies requires either sharply reducing the number of activities or programmes to be offered with the funds available (something even developed institutions oppose strongly) or the investment of major, long-term capital in the form of endowments or greatly enhanced government support which proposals would either be very rare in the first instance or nearly impossible in the latter. A critical mass of both financial support and highly trained people are required proportionate to the size of the effort if effectiveness and efficiency are to be achieved. Becoming more effective, however, is another matter.

T h e Assessment of M a n a g e m e n t Effectiveness: A Case Example

The conditions at the universities in developing countries call both for the assessment and subsequent improvement of managerial processes, and for a study process that will ensure self-determination in these matters — the argument being that any movement forward must spring from self-knowledge and discovery and not from the instructions, suggestions and prescriptions of others, particularly external funding agencies, if the remedies are to be accepted and enacted.

It was this recognition that prompted the leaders of 'Our University' to begin in Fall, 1990 to discuss the ways in which it could conduct a self-assessment of its management processes in order to establish an agenda for change. A completely n e w top team of leaders had been selected for the university, all of them experienced academics. They were assisted by an able 'grants and links' officer with management training w h o were anxious to see improvements. They wanted to identify those things that could be enacted without additional funds or with little funding, as well as improvements that would require the infusion of large amounts of expertise and funding, probably from donor agencies over a number of years. But the focus at the ' O U ' as decidedly on establishing their o w n agenda before any interaction with outside agencies. This visitor arrived at the University in early January, 1991 and assumed the role of consultant in the design of the study process and m e m b e r of its steering committee, which role was held for three months.

Context for the Study

'Our University' like m a n y other major universities in the developing world, has had m u c h advice, largely unimplemented, over the years, a not unexpected condition given the economic and workload conditions of most such universities and the varied sources and lack of relevance of m u c h of the materials. This advice from m a n y visitors and sectors over the past five years when coupled with its o w n written studies totalled more than 40 reports, a large, partially relevant, and mostly undigested reservoir of analyses and recommendations for change, m u c h of it about management policies and practices.

The second factor contributing to the design of the study process to be conducted at the ' O U ' was a n e w top leadership team of three respected ex-professors anxious to have an agenda for change ~ within months, not years. The third factor, a decidedly limiting one, was a set of conditions left over from a twenty year period of financial neglect of the University — basic issues (we called them pre-requisites for management — see the Framework, Appendix B ) unaddressed and sapping the daily and continuing energy of the institution. They included extremely low salaries (slashed 80-90 per cent in the early

3


1970's), deteriorated infrastructure including, among other things, largely non functional telephone system, food services, office equipment and the like.

T h e Design of the Study Process

The study of the management at the ' O U ' then, had to be: intensive; internally and highly motivated; fuelled by some 'starter' funds for the study process to overcome some of the demoralising aspects of the 'pre-requisites' problem; based in part on available reports; and inclusive of enough leaders from across the constituencies so that the results of the process could be 'owned ' psychologically by m a n y people and therefore implemented without major opposition. The design of the process, then, had the following elements, all of which were employed in an amazingly productive process over the first three months of 1991:

(1) Public, strong endorsement of the process by both the Vice-Chancellor and the Chief Administrative Officer of the institution, and an initial guarantee of funding for the first phase of the process. These funds were needed to support interviewers and document analysts. It was usually in the form of incentives such as financial allowances, but also including transportation costs, supplies and data processing costs. For a financially destitute institution, this clearly was seen by m a n y in the university community as a courageous and appropriate choice by the top leaders.

(2) Appointment of a steering group for the process composed of senior professors and experienced programme administrators, and headed by a Dean of one of the faculties. All received some augmentation of their basic compensation for the period of the study, based on productivity and extent of involvement. These leaders formulated the terms of reference and the methodology of the study (see Appendix A ) and guided the entire process.

(3) Formulation and acceptance of a written Conceptual Framework for the study (see Appendix B ) that would enable a c o m m o n 'language' to be used about management, that provided comprehensive coverage for a great variety of managerial dimensions, and that could serve as the basis of the various written and other instruments used in the study process.

(4) Selection and proper orientation of a group of fifteen paid research associates for the process, faculty members with some interest in management and university processes w h o could analyse the existing documents and conduct a wide range of interviews on the campus.

(5) Formulation and use of a Document Analysis Form (see Appendix C ) and an Interview Format (see Appendix D ) for use by the research associates and a Survey Instrument (see Appendix E ; sample page from the instrument sufficient to indicate h o w it was developed from the Conceptual Framework) to be used with forty campus leaders (administrators, faculty members, students and others). All were based on the agreed upon Conceptual Framework.

4


(6) Analysis of the results of the aforementioned document analyses, interviews and survey results by means of content analysis, in the first and second instances, and simple, computer-based, descriptive statistical techniques in the latter case.

(7) The conduct of a two-day workshop for fifty campus leaders to analyse the results of the foregoing steps, to interpret the findings and to formulate a priority list of problems and general strategies to solve them.

(8) The subsequent use of small project teams to address detailed strategies for change in each of four general areas of problems (planning and funding; staffing policies; structural problems and student services and development) over a one month period.

(9) Conduct of a second two-day workshop for campus leaders and representatives of donor agencies at which the project team reports were fully discussed and 'packages' refined for possible funding.

The process of study at 'Our University' was an unqualified success. All five stated terms of reference for the study process (see Appendix A ) were achieved. The major unstated purposes were, as would be the case for any university in a developing country, to build a consensus among senior faculty members and top administrators about the nature of any major management problems, the relative priority of them, the agenda of changes needed and the major w a y to achieve them. Furthermore, as stated earlier, it was felt to be very important that the agenda for change be locally and internally rather than externally generated. These things were also perceived to be fully accomplished at the University. It was not possible in the three months of the study process to go beyond these important first steps, to actually alter the management processes needing improvement or to commit the university and potential funding agencies to multiyear action programmes. These things will c o m e over time through action by the University Council (as promised by the Chairperson of the Council w h o m a d e a public commitment to action at the first major Workshop) and through the negotiation with and commitments from donor agencies. But the big, important, first steps were achieved. Without such, sustainable change in complex processes like management cannot occur at any university.

While it was never seen as a panacea, every official of 'Our University' and representative of any agency that participated, was enthusiastic about the purpose, the procedures and the important results, written and unwritten, of the process. M a n y ideas were obtained for changes in the management of the ' O U ' and a set of longer term plans were formulated. Representatives of one agency were so impressed with the first stages of the process and the effort and top level commitment at the ' O U ' , that they arranged an immediate grant to fund the entire study process. Expectations are high for m a n y more fruitful results from the study process, even though all agree that it is but a beginning on a long road of constructive reform, tough choices and needed developments. The study process itself was very good for the University; the med ium in these matters is often the major message.

The process used at 'Our University' was designed for its circumstances, but the purposes and general dimensions are probably appropriate for m a n y universities in developing countries. The statement of the study's purposes, the official general statement

5


of procedures and the Conceptual Framework document and the major instruments employed are appended to this report. It is hoped that other universities in developing countries will attempt similar processes, ones that will enable them to establish their o w n agenda for change.

References

British Council, Committee for International Co-operation in Higher Education, Education and Science Division. Report on workshop on cost reduction and recovery and alternative funding of universities, Lusaka, September 1990.

Kells, H R , (1989) 'The nature of the university-industry alliance and its limits'. Higher Education Policy, Vol. 2 , N o . 12, pp 9-12.

6


Appendix A

The review of the effectiveness of management processes

Terms of Reference for the study process:

1. to identify major problems and issues in the management processes.

2. to create a commitment to any resulting statement of problems and strategies.

3. to suggest strategies to improve management.

4 . to prepare a useful report to serve as a first plan for the multi-year task of improving the effectiveness of management and to be used äs the basis of informing potential sponsors and any validating visitors.

5. to formulate some proposals for funding the improvement strategies.

The Process to be Employed

The following steps will be taken:

1. collect available studies, consulting reports and the like.

2. create a framework for the analysis of the problems of management.

3. analyse the available reports to identify the key problems and issues. This will be accomplished by assistants or analysts engaged for this purpose.

4 . prepare an interview format derived from the framework.

5. conduct the interviews.

6. analyse the interviews and prepare for Workshop N o . 1.

7. conduct Workshop N o . 1 at which the results of the previous steps will be presented and discussed. Initial strategies to improve management will be formulated.

8. collect and distribute the results of the workshop in preparation for Workshop N o . 2 .

9. conduct Workshop N o . 2 to discuss reports and to refine the strategies and to reach a consensus on them and on any approaches for funding.

10. preparation of final reports and first proposals for funding.

7


Appendix В

Framework for the review of the effectiveness of management

A n y study of the effectiveness of management in an organization must be based on a conceptual framework that defines the basic aspects of management in the organization and can guide the examination. The framework can guide the analysis of existing documents and is the basis of a survey instrument. T o the extent that the framework is acceptable ... is seen to be useful... by the leaders of and participants in the study, it can also help to guide the discussions seeking to set priorities on the problems turned up in the review of documents and the interviews. Finally, it m a y be useful in guiding the participants in the workshops and task groups as they discuss strategies for improvement.

T h e Nature of the University as an Organization

The University as a form of organization is a special case, difficult to manage well, to assess and to change. This is so for a number of reasons. Universities are professional, not-for-profit, service oriented, labour-intensive bureaucracies. They have, generally ...

poorly articulated goals, sometimes with lack of consensus on major goal elements;

poorly defined, and some generally indefinable outputs;

the major production functions (teaching and research) are delegated to the far reaches of the organization with little control;

characteristically poor information systems;

most leaders and most professionals are poorly or little trained for their major assignments (managing and teaching);

complex and highly delegated decision making system ... collégial, political and/or autocratic;

a level of professional independence which is healthy for scholarship but which makes achieving other goals somewhat difficult;

major processes (teaching programmes and scholarship) that are often organized in ways that are not sequential, linear and interdependent;

a relationship with government and/or private sponsors that can have unexpected, large and sometimes serious consequences;

8

The assessment of managerial effectiveness at universities in developing countries

• a basic lack of appreciation and trust of the managerial leaders by the academic professional cadre.

S o m e Definitions

So, managing these organizations, that is, working with and through people to effectively and efficiently achieve the organization's goals, is a problem. It involves sub-elements of planning, and decision-making, organizing, staffing, leading, controlling and communicating, and evaluating. It requires an appropriate structure and system led by confident talented leaders and managers (academic and administrative) to create a 'healthy' organization with clear goals, commitment to working together effectively to solve problems and achieve the goals. There must be encouraged narrowing of the gap between personal and organization needs and goals, and all must be committed to both ongoing and periodic participative assessment, so effectiveness can be determined and changes made, and so additional choices (planning) can be based on these assessments.

T h e Framework

The following framework is suggested for the review (assessment) of managerial effectiveness. It basically divides the general concept of management into three parts:

1. Basic Needs or Prerequisites to Effective Management

2 . T h e Core Elements in the Managerial Sequence

3. Specific Functional Management

1. Basic Needs or Prerequisites

This category is extremely important and often neglected in practice. It is derived in principle from the work of several organizational psychologists, w h o have argued that it is not possible to motivate people to fulfil their potential, to accomplish tasks and to achieve goals if their basic needs for food, safety, shelter, salary and the like are not met. These elements, of course, m a y be highly dependent on, for instance, government policy, the state of the economy, geography, and basic infrastructure. Therefore, one might argue that a self-study cannot affect these things. But these things are fundamental to effective management and any study must take cognizance of them and, where needed, stress their importance in the final reports, and they must be considered as a prelude to the core elements and functional problems. The specific elements in this category as related to institutions like ours would seem to be:

• adequate basic salaries for employees (so people can devote their full time and energy to the tasks of managing without concern about basic welfare for their families).

• a high quality, reasonably priced food service for employees (so people can work a full day without hunger and other distractions).

9


• adequate budget or any support to the University for academic/and administrative purposes.

• an internal communication system that is reliable. A telephone service, internal and external, that functions every time and that does not leave the University relatively isolated on an hourly or daily basis from almost anything beyond the campus, and even office to office (unless one is to continuously walk from the affected office to deliver ideas or schedule meetings). A n y system should permit messages to be left and calls diverted to others w h o can handle them.

• freedom from any unwarranted interference, political or other, but that also allows University to use its expertise in informing and improving policy making and practice.

• adequate basic supplies and equipment for all offices (administrative and academic) to ensure effective implementation of tasks, managers have the opportunity to devote most of their time managing, rather than being constantly distracted by manual methods or faulty or inadequate equipment.

These are the basic prerequisites necessary for any group of managers to perform the tasks, both core (group 2) and specific (group 3). O n e additional basic need exists. That is, of course,

• A basic supply of talented people prepared by their natural cognitive skills and by experience and training to understand and implement management principles, is needed. Without this, attempts to improve management effectiveness will probably be largely frustrated.

So, in reviewing basic management process, w e should start by discussing whether these (or other) basic prerequisite items exist and, if they don't, decide what strategies and proposals can be made to alter the basic conditions. These prerequisites cannot be ignored. If they are, specific procedural or structural changes will have but limited effects on the nature of management.

2. Core elements in the M a n a g e m e n t sequence

For the sake of brevity and in order to organize and categorize the basic steps or core elements of management, the following categories are presented with sub-elements provided. In practice, of course, the elements are sequential and interdependent and they exist in a cyclical process ... Planning and Decision making; Organizing and Co-ordinating; Staffing; Leading, Directing and Communicating; Controlling and Evaluating and back to Planning and Decision Making.

10


T h e elements and their constituent sub-elements

A . Planning: the process of setting goals and designing programmes and procedures at a strategic or tactical level in light of perceived needs and the environment.

Sub-elements:

1. clarification of purposes, and thorough and realistic needs assessment and setting of goals at University, Faculty and Department office level.

2 . adequate information about trends, needs and environment.

3. appropriate and necessary involvement of constituencies, leaders and eventual implementers to insure 'ownership' of plans.

4 . informed, innovative, appropriate yet realistic plans.

5. completeness of coverage - all areas receiving attention, yet with priorities being set.

6. continuity of action, implementation of plans and a commitment to evaluate results with performance measures.

7. clear ties to budgeting.

8. information to all necessary officers about planning decisions and implementation.

B . Organizing: establishing structure and conditions to implement the plans and achieve goals.

1. effective, realistic and timely budgeting.

2. clear and useful job descriptions.

3. structures that are not duplicated and lines of authority that can work and that are the simplest way to get the job done.

4 . decision-making and advisory organs (Council, Senate, Faculty Boards, Committees) that work effectively on a timely basis and that formulate policy and ensure effective and timely implementation.

5. delegation of responsibilities and requisite authority to (and support structures that) enable managers to m a n a g e - not to be consumed by administrative detail.

6. an appropriate level of budgetary devolution and control - that is consistent with the availability of talented willing managers, but that does not exceed it.

11


7. a balance between incentives to operating units and staff, and responsible costing and provision of central overheads.

8. lines of authority that are clear and staffing provisions that work.

9. adequate financial resources from government and the productive sector.

10. a profile or programmes and services that is manageable in size and workload and that can be supported at a reasonable level (not being spread too thinly when resources are inadequate). B e able to do well whatever you do.

11. any special services needed by the staff because of local conditions, location or cultural dimensions, must be accommodated but should be kept in proper proportion so that the management task and conduct of services can proceed, (examples: transportation and health care on a relatively isolated campus).

C . Staffing: providing adequate trained, and motivated human resources, (managers and staff).

1. stimulation of the pool of available talent - image, incentives, assistance to those seeking to consider employment.

2. selection techniques that are appropriate - valid criteria, fairness, due process, timeliness.

3. proper induction or orientation processes - effective processes, up to date handbooks, procedures manuals, and explanation of job descriptions.

4 . reward structures, (pay scales, promotions, incentives, merit awards and fringe benefits) to attract the needed talent, to meet local conditions and to ensure retention as well as full professional attention to the job; updated periodically.

5. staff appraisal schemes that w o r k - timely, fair, attuned to the job to be done, to staff development needs and to barriers to be removed - regular and continuous.

6. staff development schemes - for specific training and for general supervisory and other management training.

7. career ladder possibilities and some job rotation to enrich knowledge and perspective and to motivate people w h o reach the top of the ladder at a young age.

D . Direction, Leadership and Communication: leading the unit or organization and motivating the staff to perform to their full capabilities to achieve the established goals.

1. Are leaders and top managers well selected at all levels? (Identification, selection, training induction, deployment, evaluation, development).

2 . D o they inspire trust and c o m m a n d respect through accomplishment and by setting the best example of professional life and practice?

12


3. Can the leaders or top managers, faculty and departmental leaders exhibit consistency, fairness and reliability in doing what they promise to do?

4 . D o the top managers focus primarily on policy matters and choice making?

5. D o the middle and top level managers delegate effectively, retaining the ultimate responsibility?

6. Are the managers (at various levels) well organized and do they exhibit good basic supervisory management skills (manage time well, arrange to be accessible at regular times; handle communication effectively; exhibit good interpersonal skills; handle their workload in an effective and timely manner)?

7. Are managers (at various levels) good communicators and can they inspire confidence and motivate their staff and colleagues?

8. D o the top managers truly understand the purposes of the University; can they formulate goals and objectives and can they translate the intention into effective practice and programmes?

E . Controlling and Evaluating - conducting ongoing assessments and periodic participatory evaluations of h o w effectively and efficiently the programmes and practices serve the clients and fulfil the plans that have been formulated.

1. Is there a useful information system that can provide timely basic information for decision making and for the evaluation function?

2. Are there adequate control structures?

3. Are the managers regularly assessing the satisfaction level of clients? (do they seek regular feedback from students, staff and others they serve?)

4 . Are the managers willing to listen to their clients and colleagues?

5. Are problems 'buried', ignored or reacted to defensively or are they seen as challenges to be met, matters to be solved?

6. D o the managers constantly seek to improve practice or do they just accept what is or expect someone else to fix things?

7. Is regular evaluation the basis of improvements, planning and aspects of budget making?

8. D o managers know h o w to explore problems and give negative feedback without alienating their colleagues?

13


3. Specific, Functional M a n a g e m e n t

This third category of management concerns the professional calibre of staff - those knowledge dimensions required by specific managers to accomplish specific tasks (such as accounting knowledge and skills, students' services or estates or food service practices and competencies). The focus here is on the extent of specific knowledge and training, on the functional competency, what one might call state of the art methods for a specific setting of circumstances and ability to innovate in delivering effective and efficient service.

O n pursuing this category, the studiers must consider the management of each of the major offices or functional areas, such as:

1. Central Administration

Vice-Chancellor, Bursar; Registry; Audit Office; Secretarial Services; Planning Office; Chief Academic Officer, Chief Administrative Officer.

2. Students' Services

Dean of Students; Bookshops; Catering and Cafeterias; Admissions; Hall Administration; Examinations.

3. Staff Resources

Medical Services; Recruitment & Training; Staff Development.

4 . Academic Services

Library; University Press; Research and Publications; Links and Co-operative Projects; Staff Development; Teaching and Learning; Heads of Departments; Deans' Offices.

5. Facilities, etc. Garage and Vehicles; Hotel; Stores; Transport; Telephones; Grounds; Buildings; Cleaning.

14


Appendix С

Document analysis form

N a m e of analyst: Date:

Background:

Official N a m e of the Document:

Date Published or Submitted:

Principal Author(s) or Committee:.

Type of Report (External Visitor; Consultant; Government; University Task Force; etc.)

W h e r e Document is officially filed, stored or can be found?

1. What was or appeared to be the stimulus for the report? (planned conditions and/or sponsors interest)

2. What , if any, process(es) or procedure was/were used as the basis to produce the report? (interviews; personal knowledge; review of files or other reports; external literature or knowledge)

15


3. W h a t was the major focus or matter(s) attended to in the document? (e.g. financial concerns; decisions making; problems in the functioning of an office or service, etc.) Use the chart on the following pages to categorize the major issues addressed and to briefly note the nature of the problems.

Categorization of m a n a g e m e n t problems (based on the framework for the review)

Category ' X ' each category Notes: Briefly identify all that is treated in the major problems document. identified in document.

Also give page reference.

I. PREREQUISITE CONDITIONS TO EFFECTIVE M A N A G E M E N T

Q Such as: adequate pool of talent to manage; basic salary levels; basic communication system (telephones, etc.); basic staff food service; basic equipment and supplies; freedom from interference.

П. CORE M A N A G E M E N T ELEMENTS (indicate level in the organization)

• A . P L A N N I N G A N D D E C I S I O N M A K I N G including: goal setting; nature of the process; quality of the plans proposed; realism; continuity; ties to budgeting; decision processes.

16


• B . O R G A N I Z I N G A N D C O - O R D I N A T I N G including: budgeting; structures; financing levels; job descriptions; efficiency; delegation; costing and overheads; incentives; and duplication of effort.

Q C . S T A F F I N G including: selection techniques; attracting talent; reward structures; appraisal of work; staff development; career ladders.

• D. DIRECTION, LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION including: natural talent of leaders; ability to inspire trust and respect; consistency, continuity and follow through; fairness; focus on policy; ability to delegate; good organising skills (time management, etc.); communication ability; and ability to translate goals to action.

• E. CONTROLLING AND EVALUATION including; the information system; assessment of client satisfaction; listening ability; willingness to see problems as challenges; improvement of practice; budgets linked to evaluation results, etc.

17


Ш . FUNCTIONAL M A N A G E M E N T (ability of specific offices and their managers to function effectively to meet goals and to satisfy clients.) Please circle the offices pointed to in the documents as needing improvements and note the specific problems mentioned.

1. Central Administration Notes:

• Vice-Chancellor • Bursar • Registry • Audit Office • Secretarial Services • Planning Officer • Chief Academic Officer • Chief Administrative Officer

2 . Student Services

• Dean of Students • Bookshop • Catering and Cafeterias • Admission Office • Hall Administration • Examinations

3. Staff Resources

• Medical Services • Recruitment and Training • Staff Development

4 . Academic Services

• Library • University Press • Research and Publications • Links and Co-operative

Projects • Staff Development • Teaching and Learning • Heads of Departments • Deans Offices

18


Facilities, etc. Notes:

Garage and Vehicles Hotel Stores Transport Telephones Grounds Buildings Cleaning

6. Other

IV. W h a t major recommendations were made? (Please summarize carefully and concisely. Distinguish between what the report identities as major and minor items. List major ones only; note the collective nature of the minor recommendations.)

V . Can you tell whether any improvements or other actions were taken during or as a result of this report? List them.

19


APPENDIX D

INTERVIEW FORMAT

INTRODUCTION

(1) The Interview will be preceded by a letter explaining the review.

(2) At the actual interview, the interviewer will quickly review the purposes and guarantee anonymity. The results will be analysed across the interviews and sorted by categories (background descriptors) and not by individual responses.

BACKGROUND DESCRIPTORS (One (X) for each question)

Primary Role?:

Faculty M e m b e r Student Leader Head of Department Dean • Central Administrator Other •

Worked at other Universities?:

Yes • No •

Please specify

Starting Points for Discussions: Issues to be explored ~

1. W h a t are the major strengths of the management processes at this university, or, what areas or functions are managed well? Can you distinguish by level in the institution?

20


2. W h a t are the major or top priority problems or weaknesses of the management processes at the University. (Perhaps you might wish to look at the categorized list of management aspects or functions in the F R A M E W O R K for the review and which the interviewer can provide.) Please distinguish by level in the institution.

3. W h a t strategies would you suggest be employed to improve the major weaknesses you cited?

4. W h a t other matters should be addressed in the review? and/or, what other comments would you like to make?

Please remember to fill out the detailed survey form if you have not already done so. Thank you very m u c h for your time and ideas.

21


Appendix E

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

The following Totally Mostly Mostly Totally

conditions are: adequate adequate inadequate inadequate

1. BASIC NEEDS AND PREREQUISITES: (Check one item per line)

1. Basic salaries Q Q Q Q 2. Food quality and

prices for managers and staff О Q ü D

3. Internal communication system (modern telephones, etc.) • • • •

4 . Freedom from unwarranted interference (political or other)

5. Basic office supplies and equipment

6. A basic supply of talented people available to manage

Comments:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

- •

22


2. C O R E M A N A G E M E N T ELEMENTS (check one item per line)

With respect to the following items:

A . Planning

1. Needs assessment and setting of goals at all levels.

2. Adequate information for decision making

3. Appropriate participation

4 . Plans that are informed, innovative and realistic

5. Plans that have priorities for action

6, Continuity and implementation of plans

7. Clear ties of plans to budgets

8. Information to all about the planning decisions

Special comments:

Excellent

•

•

•

•

о

•

•

•

G o o d

•

•

•

•

Q

•

•

•

Fair

•

•

a

a

•

•

•

•

Poor

•

•

• _

•

•

•

•

•

Can't Say

•

•

•

•

•

•

Q

Q

23


B.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.


Excellent

Organizing and Co-ordinating

Effective realistic and timely budgeting

Clear and useful job descriptions

Structure and lines of authority that are simple and workable

Effective and timely decision structure (committee & Council)

Delegation of authority

Appropriate budgetary devolution to departments

Incentives and realistic costing and overheads

Control structures and financial information

•

•

•

•

•

•

Ü

•

Good

a

•

•

•

•

•

•

о

Fair

•

Q

•

•

•

•

•

•

Poor

•

•

•

•

о

•

•

•

Can't Say

•

•

• .

Q

•

•

•

Q 9. Adequacy of financial

resources • • • • • 10. Extent to which the

profile of programmes and services is matched with resources • • • • •

Special comments:

24



Excellent

C . Staffing/Human Resources

1. Stimulating the pool of talent

2. Valid, fair selection techniques

3. Proper induction and orientation

4. Appropriate reward structures

5. Staff appraisal scheme

6. Staff development scheme

7. Career ladder possibilities

Special C o m m e n t s :

•

•

•

• •

•

•

Good

•

•

•

• •

•

•

Fair

•

•

•

• •

•

•

Poor

•

•

•

о •

•

•

Can't Say

•

•

•

• Q

•

•

D . Direction, Leadership and Communication

1. Selection of leaders • • • • •

2. Leaders inspire respect

3. Leaders are consistent, fair and reliable

4. Top managers focus on policy

a

•

•

•

•

a

•

•

•

о

•

о

ü

Q

Q

25


With respect to the Excellent Good Fair Poor Can't Say following items:

5. Manager delegate effectively ü Ü • • •

6. Managers are well organized (time and paper management) Q Q Q Q Q

7. Managers communicate well and inspire confidence • • • • •

8. Managers can translate goals to action • • Q • •

Special comments:

E . Controlling and Evaluating

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Useful information system for these purposes

Regular assessment of client opinions

Managers willing to listen to reports of problems

Problems not buried; taken as challenges

Managers seek to improve practice

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Ü

•

•

•

о

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

a

Q

• 6. Regular evaluation is the

basis of improvements and planning и • • • •

26



Excellent G o o d Fair Poor Can't Say

7. Control structures are adequate • • • • •

Special comments:

3. SPECIFIC M A N A G E M E N T FUNCTIONS

Adequacy of functioning and service is:

1. Central Administration

• Vice-Chancellor

• Bursar's Office

• Registry

• Internal Audit Office

• Secretarial Services

• Public Relations

• Planning Office

• Chief Academic Officer

• Chief Administrative Officer

Excellent

• • • • • и •

•

•

G o o d

• • • Ü

•

О Ü

•

•

Fair

•

•

•

О • • •

•

•

Poor

• • • • Q

U •

•

•

Can't Say

• • • a • • •

•

•

27


Adequacy of functioning and service is:

2. Student Services

• Dean of Students

• Bookshop

• Catering and Cafeterias

• Admission

• Hall Administration

• Examinations

3. Staff Resources

• Medical Services

• Recruitment and Training

• Staff Development

Excellent

• •

• • • •

о

Q •

Good

• •

• a • •

•

• •

Fair

• a

• • Q a

a

a •

Poor

• •

• • • •

•

• a

Can't Say

• •

• О • •

a

• •

4. Academic Services

• Library

• University Press

• Research and Publications

• Links and Co-operative Projects

• Staff Development

• Teaching & Learning Improvement

• •

•

Ü

a

•

• •

•

•

•

•

a •

•

•

•

a

• a

a

•

о

a

• •

a

• •

a

28

Adequacy of functioning and service is: Excellent

• Heads of Department Q

• Deans Offices Q

5. Facilities, etc.

Garage and vehicles

Hotel

Stores

Transport

Telephones

Grounds

Buildings

Cleaning

• • Q • • • • •

6. Other Offices/Services

• • • • •


Kxi Fair Poor Can't Say

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• •

- • • • • •

•

• • • • • • •

•

• • a • • • • •

• Q

• • •

• • • • •

• a • • •

• о • •

•

Thank you for your reactions.

29

П Е Р publications and documents

More than 650 titles on all aspects of educational planning have been published by the International Institute for Educational Planning. A comprehensive catalogue, giving details of their availability, includes research reports, case studies, seminar documents, training materials, occasional papers and reference books in the following subject categories:

Economics of education, costs and financing.

Manpower and employment.

Demographic studies.

The location of schools (school map) and sub-national planning.

Administration and management.

Curriculum development and evaluation.

Educational technology.

Primary, secondary and higher education.

Vocational and technical education.

Non-formal, out-of-school, adult and rural education.

Copies of the catalogue m a y be obtained from the П Е Р on request.

The International Institute for Educational Planning

The International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) is an international centre for advanced training and research in the field of educational planning. It was established by U N E S C O in 1963 and is financed by U N E S C O and by voluntary contributions from M e m b e r States. In recent years the following M e m b e r States have provided voluntary contributions to the Institute: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, India, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland.

The Institute's aim is to contribute to the development of education throughout the world, by expanding both knowledge and the supply of competent professionals in the field of educational planning. In this endeavour the Institute co-operates with interested training and research organizations in M e m b e r States. The Governing Board of the IIEP, which approves the Institute's programme and budget, consists of eight elected members and four members designated by the United Nations Organization and certain of its specialized agencies and institutes.

Chairman: Victor L. Urquidi, (Mexico) Research Professor Emeritus, El Colegio de México, Mexico.

Designated Members: Alfredo H . Costa Filho, Director-general, Latin American and Caribbean Institute for

Economic and Social Planning, Santiago. Goran Ohlin, Assistant Secretary-General, Office for Development, Research and Policy

Analysis, Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Visvanathan Rajagopalan, Vice President, Sector Policy and Research, Policy, Planning and

Research, The World Bank. Allan F. Salt, Director, Training Department, International Labour Office.

Elected Members * : Isao Amagi, (Japan), Special Advisor to the Minister of Education, Science and Culture,

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Tokyo. Henri Bartoli, (France), Professor, University of Paris I, Pantheon-Sorbonne. Paris. Mohamed Dowidar, (Egypt), Professor and President of the Department of Economics, L a w

Faculty, University of Alexandria. Kabiru Kinyanjui, (Kenya), Senior Programme Officer, Social Sciences Division,

International Development Research Centre, Nairobi. Lennart Wohlgemuth, (Sweden), Assistant Director-General, Swedish International

Development Authority, Stockholm.

* (two vacancies)

Inquiries about the Institute should be addressed to: The Office of the Director, International Institute for Educational Planning, 7-9 rue Eugène-Delacroix, 75116 Paris

Issues and methodologies in educational development N o . 6

This paper, published within the framework of the П Е Р research project on 'Improving managerial effectiveness in institutions of higher education', is based on a study undertaken in 1991 at a university in Africa to identify major problems and issues in the management processes and to suggest stategies to improve management. The paper describes the design of the study and the procedures followed. It also includes the actual data collection instruments employed in the study, instruments which can easily be adapted by any other higher education institution intending to undertake a similar study.

The author

H . R . Kells is a staff member of the Centre for Education Management at Danbury Park, Chelmsford, United Kingdom, and a consultant residing in Copenhagen. For three months in early 1991 he was a links visitor in Africa sponsored by the British Council.

6 The assessment of managerial effectiveness at...

Documents

Transcript of 6 The assessment of managerial effectiveness at...