MINUTE of the SCHOOL MEETING
held in the Hugh Fraser Seminar Room, Wolfson Medical Building on 22 nd October 2014
PRESENT:
see attached listing.
APOLOGIES:
Martin MacGregor, Susan Stuart, Matthew Stirckland, Catriona Macdonald, Michelle Nicholl,
Geraldine Parsons, Matthew Barr, Costas Panayotakis, Iain Banks, Simon Taylor, Stuart Airlie
JWH welcomed all colleagues to the meeting.
Action:
1.
Minute of previous meeting held 7th May 2014
The minute of the previous meeting was approved.
2.
Matters Arising
3.
2.1 University Strategy
Following on from the ScMG meeting with Neal Juster on 22 nd April, a Strategy document was
produced by NJ. Issues and concern highlighted by Humanities had come through in the draft
strategy document. JWH reminded colleagues of the workshops and encouraged attendance. He
further reminded them of the consultation route via the My Glasgow staff portal.
Head of School update
3.1 New Staff - JWH tabled biography details for recent and newly appointed staff.
4.
Learning and Teaching
4.1 Presentation on the use of GUL Talis Aspire: Sim Innes & Ewan Campbell
SI presented on the use of the reading list system and demonstrated how to use it, including
accessing, adding to and linking to seminars. SI demonstrated how to create a list, adding
relevant and useful information, e.g. adding items to GUL short-loan system and explained the
benefits for colleagues and for students. Support is available via GUL website and moodle,
including YouTube videos. Colleagues at GUL are willing to assist and SI suggested that if
interested, colleagues should contact Robby Ireland. GUL is willing to create your page if you
can send the PDF to them.
ENC demonstrated via moodle and explained the problems he encountered and how to avoid
them. ENC demonstrated how to access recommended reading, which is directly linked to the
resources, for e.g., an e-book. ENC explained some of the issues he had experienced, e.g.
availability of the items. Adding an item via the GUL catalogue may result in GUL purchasing
the item. The system is linked to the GUL digitisation system and ENC reported that students
appear too really like it too. JWH thanked both for their contribution.
5.
Staff Survey
4.1 Presentation on the results
JWH suggested we deal with this internally, presenting our results to ourselves, rather than invite
HR colleagues to talk us through the results. The completion rate was 94% for Humanities. JWH
suggested we walk through the results and then have a more detailed discussion, unpicking the
results and identifying the issues. Adam Rieger queried whether further details will be circulated.
JWH hoped to obtain the open comments and would circulate if so.
JWH had broken down the PDF figures, placing the information into an excel spreadsheet and
highlighted all 5% - 10% differences to GU or CoA.
JWH discussed some of the areas:There is a high sense of value, but a low sense of job satisfaction. There are issues concerning
workload, but peer support from colleagues had improved. It is clear that there is concern about
work-life balance, some disagreement regarding objectives agreed in P&DRs and serious
concerns over leadership and senior management. If it is assumed that line manager refers to
HoSub/HoSA, there had been positive responses.
Document1
-1-
Within the Health, Safety and Wellbeing element of the survey there was clearly HS concern over
wellbeing, with strong feelings surrounding work, experience, inability to take breaks and
feelings of stress. The Equality and Diversity element of the survey had generally good results.
With reference to communication; it was suggested that this was something that we could do
better within the School. A high proportion of colleagues had thought about leaving, though not
many had.
4.2 HSE Benchmarking
JWH gave a brief presentation on the HSE results, which allow a comparison to be made against
the last results in 2012. JWH would circulate the spreadsheet and HSE benchmarking figures.
JWH
What lies beneath the results seemed to be related to:
-
Institution
-
Trust
-
Workload
-
Work-life balance
-
Engagement
-
Change.
Thomas Munck suggested that an analysis would be helpful, but holding Senior Management
Group to account and encouraged colleagues to continue pressing for an action plan.
Isabel Jones queried whether help and support would be provided by, for example, an external
consultancy company or was it simply ‘here’s the results, get on with it’.
JWH suggested that many of the issues are within our own control.
Adam Rieger queried whether there would be an opportunity to feed back to Senior Management
on the results. JWH reported that the College of Arts would produce an action plan which
Humanities will feed into. JWH further reported that the Principals Advisory Group now
included Heads of Schools, so that he had a direct communication line to the Principal and Senior
Management.
Ann Gow suggested a section on GU website regarding the Action Plan and queried how this
would be built, what the timetable would be and how staff can contribute. JWH confirmed that
the CoA Action Plan would be made up of School action plans. JWH had provided some
provisional actions to CoA and these would be discussed at College Management Group. JWH
suggested developing a series of School actions between now and May 2015, reporting on the
actions and the outcomes at the School forum in May.
Thomas Munck made two suggestions to (1) strengthen School plenaries where decisions are
made and to devolve decisions to School from School management and (2) reinforce
accountability by setting targets for the Senior Management Group.
Thomas Clancy reported that the results show contentment with line managers, but there is no
formal management authority, for example, a P&DR reviewer may not be the line manager,
which can cause problems, e.g., objectives not communicated.
Donald Spaeth suggested that we require specific, reasonable suggested solutions for inclusion in
the action plan.
Callum Brown highlighted the issues associated with multiple vs single subject Schools. For
example, multiple sources of information, the flow of information to new staff and the complexity
of a job in a multi-subject School.
JWH hopes to increase communication in the School, perhaps with a single source of information
and the introduction of an email policy. HATII are trialling Yammer as a communication tool.
Ann Gow suggested that multiple levels of individual measurement, for example, NSS, P&DR
and course questionnaires, can contribute to workload anxiety and stress.
JWH reported that a suggestion to change the P&DR process had been included in the draft
University Strategy document.
Thomas Clancy suggested the ability to communicate possible changes from University Services
and those that are to be implemented across Campus. JWH indicated that the introduction of
service level agreements were also in the draft University Strategy.
Document1
-2-
Karin Bowie suggested the removal of routine issues that take so much time and effort, e.g.,
Board of Studies changes, with the levels of approval indicating a lack of trust.
Michael Murray reported that the layers of approval within finance and HR processes can cost
more than the item being approved and suggested that the Strategy and Staff Survey consultation
should be linked.
Steve Driscoll asked how to communicate our views to ensure they are included.
JWH would meet the other Heads of School to put forward a united front on issues where there is
overlap.
Donald Spaeth expressed two main frustrations; a lack of trust to do his job and a refusal to
accept others practice as better, which has resulted in an elimination of local practices and
autonomy and the implementation of centralisation.
JWH requested that any further comments or thoughts be send to him.
6.
AOB
There was no other business. JWH thanked all colleagues for attending.
Document1
-3-