Engage - Issue 28 Winter 2011-12

p11

PERSPECTIVE

the agenda, it is essential to ensure that a collaborative approach is developed – joining up the activities of HR, occupational health, health and safety, sport and physical activity, staff development etc. Pooling expertise helps to reduce duplication and increase effectiveness. It can also be highly beneficial to consider involving academic experts from within your institution. Crucially, this is not about another working group, without a clear agenda and remit. It sounds obvious, but this needs to be a group committed to making things happen – not another talking shop.

Collaboration can also be extended outside your institution. The universities we have worked with have, for example, found it very beneficial to be able to share ideas, learn from the mistakes of others and solve problems together. There is also further potential for benchmarking and shared services.

Leadership and management

If there is one message to take away it is the crucial role of excellent leadership and management at all levels. Feedback from our stakeholders suggests that this is the most significant enabler for wellbeing and engagement and conversely the biggest barrier when it is not working well. Although much work has been done at an institutional and sector level, it appears that this is still a major challenge which needs to be addressed.

“We strongly believe that our staff are our greatest resource. They deliver a fantastic student experience, and world-changing research. This is why, if we are to get through these difficulties and emerge as strong, resilient institutions, their wellbeing and engagement must remain an important priority.”

Professor Michael Arthur, vice-chancellor,
University of Leeds and chair,
Russell Group

Changes within the higher education sector have undoubtedly led to mismatched expectations and, in many cases, discontent. The question is, what does this mean when we are so reliant on academic staff to deliver excellent teaching and cutting-edge research? It appears to be increasingly important for institutions to understand the barriers and enablers to engagement, including the things which the organisation is able and willing to do something about – and the aspects which may be out of their control.

Where next?

The future of the wellbeing and engagement agenda in higher education is positive. We have been greatly encouraged to see an increase in the number of institutions taking it seriously, and to see the enthusiasm of individuals building over time, but momentum must be maintained at an institutional and sector level to make things happen.

Kim Shutler-Jones

Kim Shutler-Jones, national project
manager for Improving performance
through wellbeing and engagement,
University of Leeds

Stewardship for the project has now been taken over by the Universities and Colleges Employees Association (UCEA). If you are interested in the work going forwards or in playing an active role, please contact Nicola Carter, senior employee relations adviser.

E: n.carter@ucea.ac.uk
Any attempt to meet the challenge must
include careful consideration of the different
and unique challenges for different types of
leaders – a head of faculty versus a principal
investigator, for example, or a service manager
versus a technical manager. One size clearly
doesn’t fit all, and whilst there are some key
principles which work across the board they
must be tailored for different needs.

Academic engagement

Engagement with academic staff is an area which we have had little time to explore through the project. It is arguable, however, that this should be a major priority moving forwards.

We have come a long way but there is much to do. As many people have said, most of these things aren’t rocket science but they will not be easy and they will take time. We must continue to tackle the negative perceptions, and commitment to meaningful, sustainable change is required. However the long-term mutual benefits cannot be denied. E

“Meaningful change requires long-term commitment but that is not to say that positive changes necessarily need significant investment of new resources”