HIGHER Education Institutions (HEIs) across the country regularly hire faculty members, administrative professionals and staff for technical cadres to support various institutional operations. To this end, advertisements appear with the title ‘We are hiring.’ After being hired, individuals become employees who apply their knowledge and experience to institutional tasks. Generally, HEIs conduct academic, administrative, financial, research, community and collaborative activities in accordance with their acts or charters. Faculty members and other staff members use their domain knowledge and experience to perform their tasks professionally. During the execution of these tasks, they often face difficulties in securing support from the relevant department, funds, technical guidance and financial resources. They raise their concerns for an appropriate solution, which is often ignored due to the involvement of funds, additional human resources, service procurement, etc. As a result, they become demotivated, which directly affects their performance.
The situation is not as simple as stated, but a few get all the facilities and facilitation from top-level management in universities for their demands. This creates an imbalance in the distribution of resources that should be based on some criteria or principle. Those who raise their voice against such discrimination are silenced by taking adverse actions against them and this vicious cycle continues without notice. The phenomenon of ‘We are hiring’ very rarely converts to ‘We are hearing’ in such a scenario; the hearing part remains available for a limited number of people who are considered like-minded and potential partners in good or bad collaborative acts.
The main factor for such behaviour is the absence of accountability in institutional operations and processes. The University’s structural bodies, that is, Senate, Syndicate, BoG, etc., are made functional for those agendas that are already approved by the Head of the Institution. Since meetings of these bodies are not regularly conducted and if meetings are called, these are laden with heavy agendas, therefore members have limited time to review the annual performance of departments and other entities established for teaching and learning. Furthermore, the annual report of the institution, which is mandatory as per law, is mostly skipped, which raises concerns about institutional performance and priorities. As per law, the whole system is accountable to the governing bodies of the institution, but very rarely does the situation arise during the year.
Consequently, due to the non-availability of a hearing or grievance system at most universities, faculty members and other staff are compelled to constitute or join the teachers’ or employees’ association. An association is a union with rules for the welfare of faculty members and employees that are not practiced most of the time. As the association is led by like-minded individuals, they use manpower to blackmail the institutional administration and collectively protect their interests. They regularly influence HoDs, Deans and University management for various benefits. All new inductees are engaged to become their group members and are pressured to become their loyalists.
As per the University Act or Charter, all universities are authorized to develop different functional structures to achieve their institutional objectives. It is due to the gap in establishing all the required functional structures that individuals make groups and try to run parallel administrations or influence university management. If we only compare private sector institutions, there is no such association type of thing. The institutional objectives are met properly, employees are incentivized and troublemakers are not considered for further employment. Institutions need to establish a merit-based system of appointment along with other perks and privileges, which also need to be considered on merit.
To address employees’ grievances, HEIs should establish a grievance or counselling section to connect employee voices with higher management. Professional matters related to services and facilities need to be addressed promptly to promote a positive working environment. Regular monthly or quarterly interactions with higher management can help resolve issues and challenges amicably. Institutions may also introduce ICT-based discussion boards where employees can share their thoughts, issues, challenges and opportunities. The Human Resource Management department should respond to queries and clarifications within 24 hours, while matters requiring approvals of the governing body should be processed on a priority basis. Such an engaging style of governance will strengthen communication, improve employee satisfaction and help institutions achieve their objective of providing quality education.
Disclaimer: The opinion shared above is the author’s view on the subject matter and is not the official version of HEC.
— The writer is Director, Higher Education Commission, Islamabad.
