Are University of Technology Sydney Performance and Development System in Align with Strategic Goal - Essay Example

?I. Benefits At the onset, of Technology Sydney (UTS) Performance System seems to be complete that would make its academic staff more thanmotivated to work that they would stay in the university to grow their career. The university boasts of activities associated with teaching and learning, ; research and innovation; and University administration and service to the community with a salary package that maximizes the value of the remuneration the academic staffs receive. The package includes; a. Academic promotion – academic staffs are eligible for promotion every year on the basis of their performance. They could be promoted to Senior Lecturer, Associate Professor and Professor. b. Academic progression – support that would allow the academic staffs to grow in their careers. c. Incremental progression - academic staff – unless staff are have reached the maximum point for their salary level, they are eligible for incremental progression after a year’s tenure provided their performance is satisfactory. d. Study support, provision to be released from duties to pursue study and skills development programs that would enhance the capability of the academic staffs. II. Limitations While the remuneration package at UTS seems impressive, a close examination of the parameters of satisfaction of its academic staffs reveal that there are two areas that the university performance system scored dismal. The result of the of UTS academic staff satisfaction rate that can be considered dismal scoring below 50% are the career development opportunity dimesion at 42% and cross-unit cooperation, especially across different areas of UTS scoring a mere 42%. Interpreting this scores meant that UTS academic staff perceives their career development at UTS to be bleak and that they are uncooperative lacking the capacity to do teamwork. This can be considered as a curious case because the dismal figure of 42% in career development is already considered progressive as it already increased by 2% since 2009. This gives no reason to tap the management of UTS at the back because taking this figure objectively meant that it came from a a very negative base that a slight change is already considered an improvement. Cooperation is at 42% which surprisingly is 16% higher compared to other universities. This does not however mean that UTS should already congratulate itself because it still mean that UTS is underderperforming though it is not alarming compared to the career development opportunity dimension which can directly impact the academic staffs stay and performance in the university. Close investigation through the interview details of the survey revealed the reason behind the dismal career development perception of academic staff in UTS. It revealed that the performance system of UTS is designed for minimum compliance and does not appeal to achievers. An excerpt of the interview revealed; (What kind of elements of UTS performance and development planning are you NOT happy with?) Our system does not mean anything if the performance is NOT poor. Just surface administrative system that in align with compliance. (Specific question) Do you think that UTS performance and development system are in align with UTS strategic goal and vision? Yes, they are on the system. But just focus on implementing. We think the systems is just showing what we should do minimally. From this statement, the dismal figure of UTS career development score is better understood that the academic staffs does not findt the UTS Performance System to be challenging enough to motivate them. Analysis To better understand the case, it has to be understood that UTS is an academe and the subject of analysis are the academic staff who are intellectuals whose jobs require cerebral work rather than manual labor. This is important to cite because the nature of work has bearing on performance system implemented that would motivate the workforce. Motivation is important because a motivated workforce “can handle a variety of assignments, work autonomously, report higher level of job satisfaction and contribute more to the success of the department” (Musselwhite, 2011:46). On the other side of the equation organizations with an unmotivated workforce do not only have low productivity but also have high attrition rate that costs money to organizations (Bartlett, 2011). In the case of UTS, losing its prized academic staffs to other school would undermine its academic ranking among universities. In a study of Pink which is applicable to the academic staff of UTS, he concluded that to motivate people, rewarding people with monetary incentive is not enough. Herzberg already did a preliminary study on this when he reported his findings that extrinsic incentives such as fat paychecks, perks, plush offices and promotions or pay does not necessarily mean that people will work harder and smarter. What it does however is stimulate people to endure the grind of work and will only likely to perform until they get the next promotion or pay raise. But what really makes people tick are “intrinsic rewards such as interesting, challenging work and the opportunity to achieve and grow into greater responsibility” (1987:49). Pink however elaborated in his study where he illustrated that giving monetary rewards or any reward of any kind do not always work. According to Pink, reward is great in motivating people for mechanical and repetitive jobs but it does not work when the job requires even the slightest hint of cognitive skill such as teaching or working in an academe (RSA 2010). In fact, it can even be a demotivator because in his study, the productivity of performers plummeted when the reward system was introduced. Also, the performance of average and poor performers almost did not change with the reward system. This baffled the researchers so they replicated the condition of the research and it still showed the same result, rewards are horrible for motivating jobs that require cognitive thinking (Pink 2011). Dan Pink explained the rationale behind the seeming “unresponsive” behaviors of workers to reward with jobs that involves thinking. It is because they value more autonomy, mastery and involvement and when monetary consideration comes in to value their work, it sullies their performance. According to Pink, to properly motivate them, just pay them enough where they do not have to worry about their finances and provide them the autonomy to do a good work. This explains in the case of UTC why the score in career development opportunity is dismal despite the availability of programs that was supposed to motivate them. Looking at the benefit system of UTC closely, it reveals that it is very “Maslowish” (Goodman 1968) as it emphasizes the biological needs of its employees evident with the Incremental progression performance reward system where staff are eligible for incremental progression after a year’s tenure provided their performance is satisfactory when study shows that incentive through monetary reward does not work. III. Recommendations To improve UTS performance in career development criteria, it is recommended that UTS adopts the following steps to address the academic staff’s apparent lack of interest in the university’s career program. 1. Expand and clearly communicate career advancement in UTS. At the present, it is not clearly spelled out which gives the impression to the employee that they their careers are not going anywhere at UTS. 2. Provide more autonomy to academic staff to formulate their own lesson plans, syllabi as it gives them ownership to their job. Study revealed that giving autonomy to a job that requires cognitive skill is a better motivator than giving monetary reward. 3. Involve academic staff in matters that pertains to their expertise because study shows that this cause high satisfaction and motivation (Shah et al. 2012) thereby enabling academic staff to find meaning with their work in the university. 4. Emphasize on family and life programs which very few companies offer as part of its compensation package. Expand the coverage of work life balance because this makes the employees more effective and attached to the organization (Guld 2007). Bibliograhy Goodman, R. A (1968). On the operationality of the Maslow need hierarchy. British Journal of Industrial Relations 6(1): 51-57. Guld, Michael (2007). Recruitment: number two priority. Supervision. Vol. 68 Issue 12, p19-21, 3p Herzberg, Frederick I. (1987). “One more time: How do you motivate employees?”  Harvard Business Review, 65.30 (1987):48-61. Michael Bartlett, & Reporter. (2011, July). What Motivates Employees? Not What You Think. Credit Union Journal, 15(27), 18). Muhammad Jamal Shah, Mussawwir-Ur-Rehman, Gulnaz Akhtar, Huma Zafar and Adnan Riaz (2012, July). Job Satisfaction and Motivation of Teachers of Public Educational Institutions. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(8):271-281 Musselwhite, C.. (2011, September). CREATING A CULTURE OF MOTIVATION. T + D, 65(9), 46-49,6.  Pink, Daniel (April 06, 2010). Full Interview: Daniel Pink on Motivation 3.0. Retrieved at http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2010/04/full-interview-daniel-pink-on-motivation-3-0/. RSA (2010). RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Retrieved at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc Read More