Pulse Working Group

1. Pulse Working Group

2. Report on the Pulse staff survey9th November 2011 WBS Working Group: Group members: Andy Lockett (Chair), Lisa Burton (secretary), Daniel Chicksand, KamJohal, Tina Kiefer, Anne McQuillan, Alessandro Palandri, Martin Parker, SotiriosParoutis, Cecelia Russell, Sue Shaw, Pat Sullivan, Flo Swann, Nigel Sykes, Oliver Walmsley.

3. Background to the PULSE Survey • Annual University PULSE Staff Survey (spring term). • PULSE outcomes are a “snapshot in time” set of descriptors that enable leaders in the University to understand how their people feel about their jobs, their department and the University. • In 2011, the survey was condensed to focus on the 3 key themes that had emerged during the previous PULSE survey: leadership, change management and communications. • All depts. reviewed their PULSE outcomes and agreed action plans. • In order to produce action plans, a number of departments set up working groups to review their PULSE outcomes. • WBS working group to drill down into its PULSE responses, seek to understand the views behind these and recommend ways forward.

4. Remit of the working group • To review, investigate and understand the PULSE survey results. • To make recommendations to the Dean and the Senior Management Team (SMT) on a response to the findings. • Areas covered: leadership, communication and change management.

5. Issues: change management • The process of change has proved unsettling for a number of people in WBS. Views expressed included: • Concentration of decision-making and “loss of autonomy”. • Feelings of job insecurity. • Uncertainty about new structures. • Concerns about a lack of transparency about change. • Concerns that decision-making is overly drawn out. • How long will the process last?

6. Issues: leadership (Dean and SMT) • There has been a significant shift in management style towards a more executive style of leadership with the introduction of the new Dean and SMT. Views expressed included: • Concerns about transparency of decision making. • Concerns about visibility and approachability of leadership. • Concerns about the tolerance of differences of opinion. • Is there an “in crowd” (new hires and/or SMT)?

7. Issues: communication • The overriding message here is that there has been insufficient information communicated: downwards (from the Dean and SMT), upwards and laterally. Views expressed included: • High level vision but what does this mean day today? And what does it mean for me? • People don’t feel like they are being consulted. • People don’t feel like there is room for dissent. • Internal communication not always well expressed.

8. A summary of the issues • Change brings with it great uncertainty, and the longer the change process persists, the greater the uncertainty. People need more information. • A lack of information about the changes (e.g. the motivation behind them? the ends to which they are focussed? steps along the way?) creates more uncertainty. • The rumour mill works overtime to fill the informational void.

9. Recommendation 1: the Dean and SMT to communicate a clear vision for WBS • We all need to appreciate that the HE landscape has changed. • Explain the vision for WBS in more detail. • Explain the School strategy in more detail, making it clear what the required actions are, their implications for the School, and the relation to the University in the short, medium and long terms. • Acknowledge and explain why there has been a shift in management and leadership style.

10. Recommendation 2: develop better 2-way communication processes • Appreciate diversity of opinion and encourage a more open communication. • Provide for more Q&A open discussion at School Assembly. • Steering Group to include representation from HoG. • Establish regular information bulletins. • Steering Group to provide periodic briefing meetings. • The Dean and SMT to “press the flesh” within WBS including attending group/ section meetings etc.

11. Recommendation 3: provide greater transparency • Decision-making: explain how are decisions being made, the reasoning behind them, and how will they be communicated? • Aims and goals: explain how are they decided on, what is the reasoning behind them, and how they will be communicated? • Clarity of goals for performance management: particularly for probationary/junior academic staff and administrative staff.

12. Recommendation 4: develop a more supportive culture of engagement • Decide what should be the “shared values of WBS” and then promote them. • Important to boost morale and bring people together • Recognise that promoting positivity and engagement is based on assumptions that staff are (and feel) valued. • Appreciate (even celebrate) differences between academics and administrators. • Retaining administrative trust is important. • Perception that the ability to demonstrate value is more difficult for administrators. • Responsibility for building relationships lies on both sides.

13. Summary • Change brings with it great uncertainty, and the longer the change process persists the greater the uncertainty. People need more certainty. • Developing a culture of open communication will take time and will require there to be trust between all stakeholders of WBS. This does not mean that all stakeholders will agree with one another, but that they better understand why difficult decisions are being made. • There is a desire for better communication within WBS. It is important that, for this consultation to be effective, there needs to be demonstrable change.