LA/6802 May 2000
ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
Egmont House, 25-31 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9UT
Tel: 020-7670 9700
fax: 020-7670 9799 email: hq@aut.org.uk www: http://www.aut.org.uk/ /

TO: Local association secretaries and Council members
TOPIC: Managerialism in higher education
ACTION: To note in relation to paragraph 9 of the report of EDV Committee to May
Council
SUMMARY: Report of an informal survey of members' views and experiences of
managerialism in their institutions
HQ CONTACT: Paul Cottrell, Assistant General Secretary

Dear Colleague

A resolution from May 1999 Council requested Executive to survey members' views and experiences
of managerialism in their institutions and to report back. Invitations to contribute to the survey were
issued in Update and on the Association's Web site. It was made clear that information was sought
about the current state of traditional, democratic forms of institutional government and the extent to
which these had been undermined by decision making by unaccountable senior management groups.
This is what the council resolution meant by the growth of a managerialist culture in higher education;
it is perhaps to be distinguished from bad management, as such.

A total of 29 responses were received. Twenty-five of those were from individual members covering
19 institutions; two were from individuals who did not identify their institutions; and two were sent on
behalf of local associations.

Perhaps inevitably in an AUT survey of this kind, some of the responses gave accounts of problems
experienced by colleagues in specific circumstances rather than descriptions of institutional practices.

It should also be noted that four of the responses from individual members disagreed with the
Association's use of the term, managerialism. Two argued that the problem was lack of management
training:

'It is not that we are over-managed but that those with management responsibility have little training
and support in management.'

'If we want to move the debate forward then we should be talking more about improving academic
management and less about collegiality and academic freedom.'

A third respondent in this group felt that there was a lack of understanding among academics of the
roles and responsibilities of managers. The fourth believed that condemnations of managerialism were
an excuse used by those who were not prepared to be accountable for or to change their own practices:

'When there is real accountability across all levels of university staff (including academics), there may
be the chance of real constructive debate rather than head-in-sand slogans.'

The remaining 20 or so responses support the managerialist thesis. There are some interesting
variations in the responses which presumably reflect different institutional experiences. For example,
some report a reduction in the power and authority of faculty deans as academic leaders and regret
this; while others say that in their institutions deans have become the key managerialist cadre. There
is also some disagreement on the issue of budgetary devolution. Some respondents say that this has
resulted in the creation of a managerialist culture at departmental level; others say that their
institutions have become over-centralised and that devolution of decision making to departments is
desirable.

The following points were cited by several respondents:

•Reduction in representativeness and authority of senates and councils/courts

'Senate...has become a gathering for rubber-stamping management decisions'

'... the powers and membership of university senate, council and court have all been curtailed by
management'

'...recently internal chair appointments were made without going through any of the normal approvals
like senate'

'About 12 years ago the... senate voted away its decision-making authority by carrying a motion put by
the university officers that decisions made by them did not have to be ratified by the senate'

'...virtually all the decisions that matter have come to be taken by small committees either consisting of
or appointed by the university officers'

'...the V-C has the final veto and the most that senate gets to hear of this is by report'

A slightly different but interesting point: 'For some time now I have been shocked by the propensity of
the CVCP to make declarations of policy on behalf of its members, as a result of discussions among V-
Cs, on matters which are formally the preserve of senates which have not been consulted on them.'

One respondent described the situation from the perspective of the post-1992 institutions: 'In these
universities there is the semblance but not the substance of collegiality. The academic
boards/academic councils (equivalent of senate) of these universities are restricted in size and largely
defined in composition by legislation. The same applies to the boards of governors (council
equivalent). He goes on to say that in his institution academic council 'is in the hands of senior
managers (V-C, 3 PV-Cs, Registrar, 5 deans of faculty, faculty and university quality assurance
managers etc). There is not a professors' constituency and less than a quarter of the membership can
be described as representing lecturing staff rather than administrators or managers. On the Board of
Governors (24 people) there are, in addition to the V-C, only three elected academic staff and two of
those are elected by Academic Council.'

•The role of faculty boards and faculty meetings

There were a number of reports of changes at faculty level, both in relation to the role of deans
(mentioned above), and in relation to the authority of faculty boards (or their equivalent). In general,
the view was that there had been a reduction in the influence of faculty boards which in the past had
been central sources of debate and policy on academic matters.

'...all democratic control has been removed from this university by the abolition of faculty boards'

'Faculties have become dismal assemblies to which course changes are brought but little is discussed.'

'As for faculties, they now meet only once a term as against the monthly meetings previously held, and
their role seems to be the residual one of ruling on errant students and approving new courses
presented by departments. They have become empty shells. The staff are aware of this and very few
actually attend.'

•Lack of consultation about management decisions

This is quite a complex area in which a number of factors appear to be at work. The most frequent
complaint concerns the establishment of senior management teams and committees usually led by
vice-chancellors and the way in which they issue decisions without consultation. This practice clearly
relates closely to the by-passing of democratic machinery, as described above. Some respondents saw
a close relationship between these forms of managerialism and the imposition of external bureaucratic
processes such as the various forms of quality assurance and the research assessment exercise.

'...staff are constantly finding out, often right out of the blue, that new plans have been made which
they must adhere to... without their having been consulted about them before' (As well as QAA-
inspired procedures, several respondents cited departmental mergers as examples of management by
dictat.)

'The ever-increasing number of absurd quality assurance posts means that academic staff are hit by an
uncoordinated blizzard of directives. These demand action but are never accompanied by a
corresponding offer of support.'

'The lack of democratic or collegial government means (at least in this institution) that ideas coming
from non-managerial members of staff are always ignored or actively suppressed.'

'An extraordinary "academic policy" committee was invented which effectively bypassed the senate'

'...from collegiality driven by academic need through Senate to managerialism driven by financial
status considerations through Policy and Resources Committee.'

'Divisional staff meetings simply inform staff of the decisions taken by the management team.'

'Consultation documents, such as those on the future of the RAE, come to us through AUT or subject
associations rather than university channels; we can comment if we like but are not systematically
consulted.'

Some suggested solutions: 'I would love to see a management quality review as well as teaching and
research assessment exercises'; 'management is not subjected to the same level of scrutiny that is
applied to staff...upward appraisal of management should be introduced.'

As well as providing background for further discussion by Council, this report and the detailed
responses from members (including a number of research papers submitted) will be used by EDV
committee in its future work in this area.

Yours sincerely

David Triesman
General Secretary

LA/6802 page 1