We welcome this willingness of the part of the UEG to look into the promotion process with a view to greater clarity and transparency. Like the University, we are proud of our existing achievements and we are convinced that celebrating the achievements of an already creative and successful workforce contributes to more productivity, satisfaction, and wellbeing. We agree that a more accountable, transparent and supportive promotion process will inspire both existing and future employees to move forward with the Universityâs ambitious goals.
Nevertheless, we are concerned about the proposed procedure with regards to performance related annual increments and fear that it will undermine the creativity, confidence and performance of an already highly-motivated, internationally recognized workforce. We are concerned that the proposal will endanger the existing collegial ethos which has contributed to Southamptonâs existing success, and therefore risk achieving a counter-productive outcome by losing valuable staff, pitting colleagues against each other, further increase already-high levels of work-related anxiety, and engender a lower level of productivity.
Thus, while we welcome a more equitable, fair and transparent promotion process, we are convinced that a performance related pay structure would undermine our ability to maintain and develop Southamptonâs international reputation for the following reasons:
1) Job and wage security offered to staff covered by collective bargaining agreements and nationally agreed guidelines, per the 2004 National Pay Framework, are put at risk.
2) These proposed changes also have an impact on our pensions, given the current USS-UCU negotiations on final salary and career average salary schemes.
3) In the context of a transition into a higher tuition-fee regime, we fear that the proposed changes are creating a strict and artificial line between education and research which ignore the valued contribution made to teaching by all academics.
4) There is little recognition of life cause considerations and realities, i.e. maternity and parental leave, parenting, health issues, family bereavement and caring obligations, which run counter to existing gender equality laws and the Universityâs aspirations to be a socially responsible employer.
5) The inability to retain valuable staff will be characterized by dysfunctional turnover, which undermines research and teaching activity because of the resources expended on hiring and retraining staff.
6) Finally, the implementation of this consultation process is unsatisfactory and unacceptable because of the short time frame, the vacation period over which it was held, and the lack of publicity. Furthermore, the lack of involving recognized trade unions in the consultation process also leaves much to be desired.
On the whole, as underlined in a study on HRM in Higher Education, we fear that the latest proposals create a situation in which âby attempting to make HRM fit in HE, the universities are threatening to destroy the very values that would ultimately give them the competitive advantage they so desperately pursueâ (Warring 2009). We therefore, suggest the University undertake the following:
a) Let the nationally agreed collective bargaining agreements on wage increments remain in place,
b) Improve clarity of the promotion process and provide a longer consultation process in consultation with the Unions and
c) Refrain from re-branding academic positions as it is likely to cause both greater confusion and a devaluation of existing position and achievements with regards to our peer group Universities.