1 / 24

BUILDING PARTNERSHIP TRUST AND CREATING A SHARED VISION

BUILDING PARTNERSHIP TRUST AND CREATING A SHARED VISION. THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH WALES STORY GRAHAM ROGERS DEPUTY VICE CHANCELLOR USW EX DEPUTY VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF WALES, NEWPORT. UNIVERSITY MERGERS. Complex Time consuming Difficult to reverse. MANAGING UNCERTAINTY.

taji
Download Presentation

BUILDING PARTNERSHIP TRUST AND CREATING A SHARED VISION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BUILDING PARTNERSHIP TRUSTANDCREATING A SHARED VISION THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH WALES STORY GRAHAM ROGERS DEPUTY VICE CHANCELLOR USW EX DEPUTY VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF WALES, NEWPORT

  2. UNIVERSITY MERGERS • Complex • Time consuming • Difficult to reverse

  3. MANAGING UNCERTAINTY Performance Merger corridor of uncertainty TENSION Forces Extending Uncertainty Forces Reducing Uncertainty Time

  4. Cultural Differences • The most commonly cited reason for mergers failing is the failure to reconcile cultural differences

  5. Organisational Culture • Is about the way people work • The social glue of shared values and beliefs • Is the “personality” of an organisation • Unique to an organisation

  6. Cultural Fit • Top Management relations and reporting relationships • Decision making • Compatability of systems and processes • Employee engagement • Benefits and rewards

  7. Top Management Relations • CEO (Vice Chancellor) • Establish executive team early and meet regularly • Each executive member responsible for a Delivery Group: • Academic • Systems Integration • Finance, Legal and Governance • HR • Students / Student Union

  8. Delivery Groups • Equal representation • Task focussed • Open and transparent • Developed mutual understanding and started to build trust • Potential for submerged tensions and covert agendas

  9. Decision making Centre versus Devolved • Differences inevitable • University type • Who is the “top management” team • Budget responsibility • Custom and practice • Personalities • Ownership

  10. USW Approach • Timing key • Merger in 11 April 2013 • 2013/14 Academic Year largely fixed • Structures • Started pre merger and cascaded development • Appointments • Executive pre merger • Cascade process • Deans / Directors by Summer 2013 • Faculty Structure September 2013 • Administration May 2014 • Shared values and understanding • Externally facilitated process September 2013-ongoing

  11. Systems and Processes • Audit pre merger • Finance system – by 1 August 2013 • Student Record System (SRS) • Year 1 – Two systems operational • Year 2 – Integrated SRS • Years 3 and 4 – SRS integrated with other systems

  12. Shared vision • Pre merger • Business Case • Post merger • Process of establishing and shared vision one of the tools to engage staff and facilitate partnership working • Develop strategic plan

  13. Shared Vision Developing a USW Vision and Mission • Engaged all staff • Focus groups • Forums • Meetings / debates • Engaged stakeholders • Students • Community • Employers • Politicians etc Took 9 months – launched March 2014

  14. Next Step • Enabling strategies • 2020 Academic Portfolio • High Performance University • Systems and Processes “NORMAL BUSINESS”

  15. THANK YOU GRAHAM ROGERS (SSA)

More Related