Bakersfield University Case Study

Order Description READ THE CASE STUDY AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW- CASE STUDY: Bakersfield (new) University is in" rel="nofollow">in a process of change in" rel="nofollow">in order to promote more effective service delivery to its customers within" rel="nofollow">in tight budget constrain" rel="nofollow">ints. Teachin" rel="nofollow">ing staff have in" rel="nofollow">increasin" rel="nofollow">ingly taken on higher teachin" rel="nofollow">ing hours as the staff to student ratio has in" rel="nofollow">increased from 1 :1 8 to 1 :28 over the past 1 2 years. The decrease in" rel="nofollow">in staff numbers has been managed through the non-replacement of leavers and a limited level of early retirement. In addition to takin" rel="nofollow">ing on in" rel="nofollow">increased teachin" rel="nofollow">ing loads staff have been exhorted to engage themselves in" rel="nofollow">in commercial work and in" rel="nofollow">in research to a much greater extent and to complete PhDs. The staff have in" rel="nofollow">increasin" rel="nofollow">ingly felt under pressure, but have on the whole been dedicated workers. Those staff who were most seriously disillusioned by the changes takin" rel="nofollow">ing place were generally those optin" rel="nofollow">ing for early retirement, although this process also meant that much expertise was suddenly lost to many departments. The pressure of work seems set to in" rel="nofollow">increase and the goodwill and relatively high performance of staff are in" rel="nofollow">increasin" rel="nofollow">ingly at risk. In the current circumstances departments have found it difficult to recognise the good work of staff by promotion, which had been the traditional approach. Many department heads have tried to deal with this by holdin" rel="nofollow">ing out the hope of future promotion and by recognition of a good job done. Some department heads were more effective in" rel="nofollow">in this than others. The university as a whole has decided to in" rel="nofollow">introduce a performance management system (PMS) in" rel="nofollow">in order to enhance staff performance. Standard forms were produced for all departments to use and guidelin" rel="nofollow">ines were produced relatin" rel="nofollow">ing to the purpose and frequency of appraisal. All departments conformed in" rel="nofollow">in terms of carryin" rel="nofollow">ing out the appraisals, but there were great differences in" rel="nofollow">in how this was handled in" rel="nofollow">in different departments. Those heads who had experience of successful systems elsewhere, or who were enthusiastic about this change, carried out the appraisals in" rel="nofollow">in a more thorough and committed way, and did try to in" rel="nofollow">integrate them in" rel="nofollow">into the runnin" rel="nofollow">ing of the department and lin" rel="nofollow">ink them to departmental goals. Other heads failed to do this, and some were positively again" rel="nofollow">inst the system as they saw it as impin" rel="nofollow">ingin" rel="nofollow">ing on academic freedom, and in" rel="nofollow">in any case had never seen themselves as true managers. The reaction of staff was mixed, often dependin" rel="nofollow">ing on their past employment experiences and length of time employed by the university. In general, staff were resistant and sceptical. The culture of the university had been easygoin" rel="nofollow">ing with staff able to ‘do their own thin" rel="nofollow">ing’, and relied on to focus on work that was important for the university and to organise themselves in" rel="nofollow">in a conscientious manner. Those who had come to the university from in" rel="nofollow">industry had been attracted by the opportunity to control the nature and content of their own work. The new system was perceived as wrestin" rel="nofollow">ing control away from the in" rel="nofollow">individual and as an in" rel="nofollow">indication that they were not trusted. Managers have the impression that short-term sickness absence has substantially in" rel="nofollow">increased, possibly as a result of work in" rel="nofollow">intensification and stress but also possibly as a result of declin" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing staff morale. Historically, however, there have been no formal systems for monitorin" rel="nofollow">ing absence and no procedures for dealin" rel="nofollow">ing with it. The PMS addresses performance issues but not conduct issues such as sickness absence. There is growin" rel="nofollow">ing dissatisfaction among staff at the impact of sporadic absence on their workloads and a cynicism as to the value of attemptin" rel="nofollow">ing to manage performance again" rel="nofollow">inst a backdrop of poor attendance from a proportion of staff. QUESTIONS: Question 1 Explain" rel="nofollow">in how a performance management system sits within" rel="nofollow">in a high performance work system aimed at enhancin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">individual and organisational performance. To what extent is the PMS likely to succeed given the wider context? Question 2 What role do you thin" rel="nofollow">ink leadership has to play in" rel="nofollow">in the successful implementation of this scheme? Question 3 What would you recommend to the university in" rel="nofollow">in terms of its approach to monitorin" rel="nofollow">ing and managin" rel="nofollow">ing staff absence?