Southampton UCU Rotating Header Image

March, 2012:

Rethinking performance and reward at the University of Southampton

UCU Branch Update

UCU had an initial briefing in August last year where the Director of HR (Janice Donaldson) introduced the 9 matrix model (or DAP framework) which “allows staff to be assessed on both their performance and capabilities and remunerated and developed accordingly.”

We were happy to be involved in this meeting but said that ‘the devil would be in the detail’ about how any changes were implemented. We were meant to have a series of working group meetings but these did not materialise. The proposals were put on SUSSED and Adam Wheeler and Janice Donaldson held 10 open meetings with staff. We welcome this activity, but have pointed out that consultation on all matters regarding pay, terms and conditions has to be with UCU as the legally recognised trade union.

We called for an emergency Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) with management and this was held on 26 March and was attended by Adam Wheeler, Janice Donaldson and Malcolm Ace, members of HR and your UCU representatives.
As a result of this meeting the University has agreed to consult with us in fortnightly meetings with Adam Wheeler and Janice Donaldson about the reward proposals. We received written answers to some of our questions and are pursuing answers to others. And crucially the University confirmed that they understand that they must consult with UCU on this issue.

General Meeting – 28 March
At the UCU General Meeting on 28 March we discussed the reward proposals. Members present highlighted a number of concerns about performance review, reward and promotion procedures and the prospect of undergoing another change to policy/process in the University. We asked members if they wanted the University to withdraw the DAP/Reward and Recognition Proposals and this was overwhelmingly carried by the meeting.

The views of members at the general meeting have given a helpful steer for your executive group. We have noted your comments about the proposals and these will inform our discussions with the University management.

What next?
We agreed to host five meetings open to all staff to ensure that we represent your views about performance review, reward and promotion at our upcoming meetings with the University management. The dates for these meetings are:

17 April 1-2pm Winchester (WSA) – Seminar room 6
20 April 12.30-2pm Highfield – 34/3001 (Education building)
26 April 1-2 Waterfront (NOCS) – 68/104/20
27 April 1-2 Southampton General Hospital – DCR on C level of the South Academic Block
30 April 1-2pm Avenue – 65/1173

Please attend one of these meetings and encourage your colleagues to join you. UCU is the sole recognised body for consultation on these issues and we need to hear your voice.

What are the issues raised so far?
Below are some of the issues that members have already raised with us.
• We have had too much change here already so we do not want to change PPDR.
• We need more training – especially for managers doing PPDR to ensure that they do not bully staff, that we support academic freedom and pursue equality.
• We agree that this University is not good a ‘talent management’. We lose lots of great staff because of job insecurity and casualised contracts.
• We seem to spend less on training and development than comparator institutions.
• We have a significant problem with promotion – especially on the teaching pathway, and there seems to be clear gender discrimination in promotion.
• We are concerned about ‘grade drift’ (that DAP will be used to require higher level tasks to be undertaken by lower grades/lower paid staff).
• We do not feel that the use of Associate Professor is meaningful in the UK context, and we are concerned at the loss of academic titles such as Reader.
• We might want a ‘total reward’ (e.g. exploring financial and non-financial rewards – such as more admin support, more scholarship time) as we don’t believe only pay motivates.
• Managers may need to be clearer about expectations of staff (including external pressures such as REF, income generation, etc) but should also protect academic freedom and work-life balance.
• Any system needs buy in from the majority (managers should not be allowed to opt out).
• We need transparent processes, clear records and follow up and effective monitoring of processes.
• We must have adequate safeguards against bullying and harassment.

The above summarises issues directly associated with the DAP proposals, but some members have also asked more fundamental questions like how could we improve management skills or the organisational culture of the University? Should we spend money and time on this new change project when there are other areas that would benefit from better resourcing?

Performance-related pay
UCU nationally and locally does not believe that performance-related pay is desired by, or acceptable to, our members. Members here are worried that this is the goal of the proposed ‘reward’ system.

A literature review by Metawie and Gilman (2005) found that “in practice performance measurement in the public sector has been a problematic area with PRP.” Their review concluded that “differences between the nature of the public sector and the private one, referring to the presence of multiple tasks and multiple principles as well as the lack of profit maximisation as the main differences and hence the main complexities surrounding the application of performance measurement and performance related pay systems in the public sector. However, there has been a disregard or rather a simplification of the psychological aspects inherent in the public sector namely public service ethos. Traditionally under the notion of public sector ethos employees benefited from an open-ended employment contract, which, in turn, created a psychological contract that is relational in nature where employees were motivated and committed to providing maximum effort and best quality services to the community in exchange for longterm job security…. [ ]….rewards based on performance, have affected employees’ feelings of job security, and hence, tend to reduce the peculiar commitment and motivation previously found among public sector workers”.

We believe the current DAP proposals do not understand the nature of this organisation and the work we do.

The case for Performance Related Pay (PRP) is that it:
a) Allows managers to discriminate – to reward the staff they want to reward. Helps with retention of high fliers;
b) Can be used to set targets/clear expectations (e.g. key performance indicators).
Some level 7 employees (e.g. Deans and Associate Deans) have PRP. UCU does not currently have rights to negotiate for this level.

The case against Performance Related Pay (PRP) is that it:
• Can be divisive – it’s necessarily individualistic, so cannot recognise team/collaborative work which is increasingly what we do;
• Increases potential for bullying /stress – we have already seen this with rise in UCU casework on bullying associated with PPDR and REF;
• Can be discriminatory – there is evidence that it increases the pay differences associated with diversity e.g. gender, race.

The bottom line
Southampton UCU believes that proposed changes to Reward and Performance Management will change your working lives and that the current proposals are highly problematic. The general meeting on 28 March provided us with a strong steer that we should fight these proposals on your behalf.

UCU is the recognised trades union and the University must – in law – negotiate these changes with us. UCU is your voice – please come to one of the open meetings so that we can incorporate your views into the consultation.

Catherine Pope
On behalf of Southampton UCU Executive Committee
29 March 2012

Southampton UCU join SUSU at anti fees demo

UCU members joined students and staff outside the Hartley Library and Building 37 at the Southampton Students for Education event to mark David Willetts’ visit to Southampton to “shamelessly publicise his book entitled ‘The Pinch: How the baby boomers took their children’s future and why they should give it back’.”

Willetts agreed to come out to meet us, so students and staff put some searching questions to him regarding government policy on fees and university funding. (His answers were less than convincing).

Catherine Pope from Southampton UCU talked about UCU’s concerns about privatisation and fees – the text of her talk is provided below:

“I’m here on behalf of UCU – the University and College Union – the largest trade union for staff in the post 16 education sector in the UK.

We have 120,000 members in FE colleges, Universities, Agricultural Colleges, Prisons and Adult education. We are educators, researchers, librarians, technicians, IT staff and administrators. We work in different places but what UCU members have in common is that we are passionate about education.

This country has University education and research that is the envy of many other parts of the world. We deliver far more with fewer resources than many of our competitors. This government is systematically cutting investment in Universities. Worse than that David Willetts desperately wants to privatise higher education because of his misguided belief that markets make everything better.

David Willetts wanted to remove the barriers to private companies in higher education. He wanted private companies like Kaplan and Pearson to give out degrees. These for-profit organizations already have a grip on education in the US.  For-profit higher education in the US is poorly regulated but has access to lucrative publicly subsidised loans. These companies target poorer communities and they sell their education with the promise of fixing the students up with loans. They hire part-time staff – often not academics – teach predominantly online, and deliver a very narrow range of vocational courses. This nets the companies huge profits.

But it is not higher education. It is not even cheap. A US Educational Trust report showed that it costs more than twice as much to enrol at a for-profit college as it does to in a public institution. Average debt for such these students is over $30,000 compared to less than $8000 at public institutions. Graduation rates are low – 22% compared to 55% in public institutions.

I am delighted that plans to allow private for-profit companies access to publicly-subsidised student loans here have been shelved at least until 2015. UCU led the campaign against these proposals in the higher education bill. 500 academics wrote to the Telegraph in December calling on the government to scrap the plans. Collective action, demonstrations like this one, matter. They show this government that we oppose their polices to privatise education. If we act together we can stop them.

Apparently the Lib Dems were especially unhappy with the proposals to let for-profit providers into higher education. They voiced their concerns in an early day motion in the House of Commons. Perhaps they acted for fear that the general public will never vote Lib Dem again because of their failure to stand by their promises on higher education.

Which reminds me why I am really really angry with David Willetts and his Tory-led government and their Lib Dem partners.

Student Fees.

The lifting of the fees cap from October means students here will pay £9000 a year to study for a degree. These fees are the third highest in the world (only USA and Korea pay more). Our students will leave their studies with an estimated £50-60,000 debt.

We have seen applications drop nationally and locally. High fees mean that people will be denied the life changing, enriching and rewarding experience that I was privileged to receive (and which Willetts and Cameron and Clegg had). Young people from this City who happen to be from poorer families will not go to University.  Mature students – people who lost their jobs thanks to Southampton Council cutbacks or the retrenching of local businesses – will miss a chance to upskill or retrain. This University will be poorer for missing out on developing those minds for the future.

UCU are against £9000 fees for higher education.

This ‘new’ fee income isn’t extra money. These fees simply replace the money the government took away from the University block grant. Every University is having to try to deliver more with less money. This means cuts to degree programmes (Sports Education, undergraduate Social Work have been lost here). It means cuts to jobs (we lost 200 jobs to voluntary redundancy last year).

Higher tuition fees will not deliver more, or better, education.

This government is taking away opportunities for the next generation and generations after that.

David Willetts please go back to your colleagues in government and tell them what you have seen today. A great University. Brilliant staff and students.

Privatisation and high fees will destroy everything you have seen. Please stop.


‘Come Clean’ NUS day of action on March 14th.

The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts is calling for maximum turnout for ‘Come Clean’, the NUS day of action on March 14th.

In London, assemble at ULU at 2pm:  https://www . facebook . com/events/193707544066925/

Here’s a blogpost about what you can do on your campus on the day:  http ://anticuts . com/2012/02/18/walkout-14th-march/

Under the new fee regime students will face a lifetime of debt. Despite calls from MPs to delay changes to the university admissions process, he has gone ahead with plans that will favour better off students at entry and force universities into ruthless competition for places with each other. Some universities will go to the wall as a result.

The government wants to drive down costs to make it easier for private companies to feed off public education – this is why staff are fighting to defend their pensions.

Willetts’ plans for higher education are modelled on Andrew Lansley’s plans for the NHS. So far, over 20 000 people have signed a ‘no confidence’ motion in Willetts. The withdrawal of his Higher Education Bill shows that even the government lacks confidence in him.

The National Union of Students has called for a national day of walk-outs on 14 March. This is an opportunity for staff and students to rally to the defence of our education. The government is vulnerable to pressure – now it’s time for all those who are opposed to the marketisation of education to call for Willetts to go.