Mark Crabtree, Assistant Director of HR (Training & Development) & Claire McDonald, Change Programme Manager, Durham University - To discuss the aims and objectives of the Underpinning Excellence Project. - To share (briefly) the research methodology. - To give participants the opportunity to explore the toolkit. - To enable participants to consider a report from the toolkit and how this can be used to facilitate positive change in the department.

1. Slide 1
Underpinning Excellence in Higher
Education

2. ∂
Project Focus
Slide 2
Performance
Management
Metrics &
Measures
Investment in
People,
Training &
Development
What is the link between
individual/team behaviours and
departmental performance?

3. ∂
Background and Aim
Slide 3
 Aim: Identify the key performance attributes, attitudes,
behaviours and competencies evident within high achieving
academic departments or units.
 Underpinning principle: leadership, governance and
management behaviours are essential for success.
 Outcome: a toolkit which enables academic
departments/units to benchmark LGM behaviours against
high achieving departments and to suggest areas for
improvement

4. ∂
Uses of the toolkit
Slide 4
 Current Heads of Department assess their own behaviour and the
behaviours across the Department relative to some of the best
academic units in the UK
 Incoming Heads of Department consider what they might do to
improve academic performance in the shortest time.

5. ∂
Collaborators
Slide 5

6. ∂
Defining Success – League Tables
Times Good University Guide
Slide 6
 RAE data
 NSS data
 Entry standards
 Graduate prospects
High performance over three years or rapid
improvement over three years

7. ∂
Project Methodology
Slide 7
Stage 2
Data Gathering
March 2010 – Jan 2011
Stage 1
Preparation
Oct 2009—Feb 2010
Phase 1 – Preliminary Questionnaires
Phase 2 – Interviews
Phase 3 – Survey
Stage 3
Toolkit
Development
Feb 2011 – Sept 2011
Stage 4
Development
Sept 2011 – Oct 2011
Stage 5
Dissemination
Oct 2011- Dec 2011

8. ∂
Data Gathering
Slide 8
Open questions
Based on McKinsey 7S
Range of staff in successful depts
Critical case sampling
In-depth discussion
Define key features of successful depts
Test out on a wide range of depts
Fixed-response questionnaire
Prelim questionnaire
Interviews
Survey

9. ∂
Findings – Phase 1
Slide 9
Name Sources References
Excellence 74 91
Strategy 73 121
Leadership 67 91
Supportive 65 85
Departmental Dynamics 64 84
Communication 61 78
Reward systems and performance review 61 66
Shared Values - Teaching and Research 53 53
Committee 53 86
Collegial and Collegiate 51 82
Top-down 49 52
Budgeting & Finances 42 46
Alignment of direction, strategy 42 49
Staffing 41 49
Well coordinated 39 41
Open decision making 31 32
Shared goals 27 30
Teamwork 24 32
Mentoring 16 16
Student Satisfaction 15 15
Technology 13 13
Commitment 13 14
Transparency 12 13
Autonomy 12 13
Well discussed 12 12
Workload model 12 12
External Forces 11 12
Open door policy 11 12
Pressures 9 10

10. ∂
Incorporation into Phase 2
Slide 10
 The key findings from Phase 1 were incorporated into the interview
phase.
 An interview question list was developed around the major themes.
Leadership
Good managers
Leadership role
Leadership training
Good leadership
Top-down leadership
Leadership role important
Leadership in teaching and research
Good Head leadership
Good engagement
Not always the best decision
Proactive
Lead by example
Approach?
Consultation
Good and clear
Can be improved
departmental communication
Constant communication
Internal communications
Technology updates?
decision making related
Communication of strategy
Informal discussions, social rooms
Group meetings
Communication

11. ∂
Findings – Phase 2
Slide 11
Name Sources References
Budgeting and Funding 31 62
Central services (Positive and Negative) 29 78
Collegiality 28 43
HOD Traits 26 79
Room for improvement 24 78
Teaching 23 39
Department size 20 38
Reward systems (Formal and Informal) 22 48
Supportive
 Informal networks – importance
 Training and Support
19
12
10
32
16
13
Department structure
 Coordination-positive aspects
18
11
33
19
Definition of excellence 17 24
Performance review 17 23
Shared values 13 20
Informal networks-importance 12 16
Mentoring Scheme 11 15
Shared goals 11 15
Good support services 10 16

12. ∂
Findings
Slide 12

13. ∂
Leadership
Slide 13
―I know that from experience, I go up there (his office) and there are
members of academic staff in with him and they just turn up and ask to have
a chat with him so yeah I think it's quite good‖
―the Head of Department was very hands on, he wanted to speak to the staff
and make sure everybody was happy with the way things were going, so
there was more of a discussion―
"Yes I think we've become a more top down department and again I'm sure
opinions will differ as to whether that is a good or a bad thing but it has
meant that things can happen, decisions can be taken much more rapidly
than kicking them around endlessly at board's of studies‖
Approachable
Leadership
Hands on
Individual Style
Changing Styles
Receptive
Top-down
Personality
Staff Involvement
Informal Approach
Consultative Decision Making
Trust

14. ∂∂
Phase 3
• Closed response questionnaire
• Expanded to a larger range of departments to
examine findings so far
• Departments wide ranging in terms of
position in league table
Slide 14

15. ∂
Slide 15
Findings
Phase 3
Change
Management
Communication
Rewards
Leadership
Research &
Teaching
Departmental
Dynamics
and Culture
Direction, St
rategy &
Shared
Values
Staffing
Underpinning
Excellence in HE
Key factors for
success

16. ∂∂
Toolkit Design
Slide 16
Input
Short self-
assessment
questionnaire with
fixed-response
questions
Output 1
Report on areas of
strength and
weakness
Output 2
Related resources,
links to further
information
System
compares self-
assessment
results to
project findings

17. Demonstration

18. ∂∂
Toolkit
Slide 18

19. ∂∂
Toolkit Design
Slide 19
Input
Short self-
assessment
questionnaire with
fixed-response
questions
Output 1
Report on areas of
strength and
weakness
Output 2
Related resources,
links to further
information
System
compares self-
assessment
results to
project findings

20. ∂
Case Study
1. What are the key issues for this department?
2. What advice, from a staff development
perspective, would you give the Head of
Department regarding the outcomes shown in
the report?
3. How could ―staff development‖ help to
facilitate the improvements needed by this
department?
4. If academic departments are using this tool
how could you support its use?

21. ∂
Analysis
Slide 21