Staffing issues for Universities
Hilary P M Winchester
Pro Vice Chancellor: Organisational Strategy and Change
University of South Australia
Email: hilary.winchester@unisa.edu.au
Paper presented to the 3rd Annual Higher Education Summit,
17 & 18 March 2005, Melbourne
Introduction
Australian universities face a massive generational shift over the next decade as the baby boomer
generation retires. Recruitment and retention will be major staffing issues. Perhaps surprisingly, there
has been relatively little change in staff numbers, contract types and position descriptions in academic
jobs during the last decade. The generational shift of the next decade will require increased flexibility
in the organisational environment. Universities will need internal cultures that are more collaborative,
informed and inclusive to attract and retain the Generation-Xers currently under-represented in
Australian universities.
The changing academic workforce profile
The Australian academic workforce is ageing. In recent months, attention has been turned to the
distorted age profile of our workforce, which now has a median age in the early 50s (Hugo, 2005).
The age structure is distorted by the bulge of the baby boomers moving towards the end of their
working years (Figure 1, p2). As a consequence there is a significant gap in the under-40s, as
Generation X-ers found their path into academia blocked or found the conditions and expectations
relatively unattractive. Since 1995, the number of employees aged 50+ has increased by 45% across
the sector; at the same time the number of under-40s has declined by 4% while the 40-49 cohort has
increased by a bare 3%. This distorted age profile is particularly marked in some disciplines, such as
education and arts, and in some older-established universities.
1
Figure 1
45.0%
Proportion of FFT Academic staff numbers by age group, 1995 and
2004.
38.7%
40.0%
36.1%
35.0%
32.2%
32.7%
30.2%
30.0%
27.8%
25.0%
1995
20.0%
2004
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
1.5% 0.9%
0.0%
<25
25-39
40-49
50+
(DEST statistics 1995-2004)
Figure 2
%Female full time and fractional full time staff as % total staff by Current Duties Clarification
1996 -2004
60%
50%
40%
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
30%
20%
10%
0%
Academic Level A
Academic Level B
Academic Level C
Academic Level D
Academic Level E
(DEST statistics 1996-2004)
2
The workforce profile is also marked by significant gender imbalance at senior levels. Women are
slightly over-represented at Level A, but their numbers decline with levels of seniority (Figure 2, p2).
The proportion of women at Level B and above has been rising steadily for the last decade, with the
most rapid increase over the period being at Level C. However, at Levels D and E, although there are
clear indications of progress, only one in four professors are women (Winchester et al., 2005). The
distribution of female professors is highly segmented within particular disciplines such as nursing.
Women are particularly under-represented in science, IT and in research leadership positions.
The Australian academic workforce (full-time equivalent (FTE) academic staff) has remained
relatively constant over the last decade (Figure 3, p5). Although the proportion of full-time staff has
dropped from about 80% to 75%, most of this change occurred in the late 1990s, with full-time staff
accounting for 74-75% of total FTE since that time. Over the same decade, there have been small
increases in the proportion of fractional staff (from ~9-11%) and in the proportion of casual staff (from
~12-15%) (Figure 3, p5).
This brief analysis of the academic workforce shows an ageing, predominantly male and full-time
profile. The shift to a more diverse and flexible workforce is incremental rather than dramatic or
revolutionary. There is little evidence in this snapshot of Australian academe of the anticipated rise of
the portfolio worker, heralded in the mid-1990s as a significant change to working life. In 1992,
Olsten Corp suggested that in the 1990s organisations would streamline their workforce ‘to core
groups of full-time employees complemented by part-timers and networks for flexible staffing’; other
authors prophesied ‘the end of the job’ (Bridges, 1994) or ‘the career is dead’ (Hall et al., 1996), and
that workers would transport their key skills across a variety of employers, managing a variety of
activities and learning continuously (Lemke et al., 1995). It does not appear that the portfolio worker,
apparently ideally suited to the knowledge industry, has had a big impact on a workforce which has
remained essentially stable for the last decade. Flexibility has certainly not come from changing
contractual relationships between employer and employee.
Some of the complexity of working arrangements is not revealed in the data. University staff and
unions believe that there has been significant growth in casualisation, in sessional employees and in
the contingent workforce of adjuncts and contractors (Sears, 2003). It may be that workers in the
latter categories are poorly captured as University employees, as the nature of their employment
relationship is in fact different. This unmeasured workforce is likely to be gathering size and force in
tandem with new developments in the sector, such as transnational delivery of higher education, now
the country’s third largest service export.
3
The primary challenge of the next decade for Australian universities will be the replacement of the
baby boom generation. There will be dramatic staffing changes as this generation retires, taking with
it most of the sector’s most prolific grant getters and productive researchers. Hugo (2005) has named
this issue as the ‘largest recruiting task for three decades’. Inevitably, there will be intense
competition in a tight market. Australian universities will increasingly have to draw their academic
workforce from overseas, from return migrants and from industry and professional backgrounds.
Many academics will continue beyond traditional retiring ages, but nonetheless within a decade the
Australian academic workforce will be considerably different, younger, more diverse and with a
variety of prior experience. Although a small cohort may be attracted to elite jobs in high-paying and
high-status fellowships, the bulk of the academic workforce will be attracted and retained not by salary
alone but by the total employment proposition that a University can offer. Universities will not only
have to pay more for scarce talent, they will also have to ensure that they are good places to work;
vibrant, collaborative institutions with a culture that supports staff.
A related but secondary issue to recruitment will be the balance of retention and exit strategies for the
baby boomer generation. This group contains extremes of performance and the balance of strategy
should be based on clear expectations, backed up by effective performance management. The
Australian university sector is tackling this issue in a variety of ways, from dignified exit strategies to
slash-and-burn. Some of the more effective exit strategies include part-time contracts with retention
of superannuation benefits, adjunct status, and reallocation of duties in the pre-retirement phase, for
example to remove the requirement for research. Retention strategies tend to be primarily focussed on
remuneration, often performance based, and may benefit from a fresh look at conditions and the total
employment proposition. Retention of key staff beyond normal retiring age depends heavily on the
attractiveness of continued employment, often measured in relatively intangible terms such as
satisfaction. A key role for these staff will be in mentoring and coaching their replacements.
Recruitment, retention and release are always significant staffing issues, but in an environment of
potentially massive turnover, a university’s response to these will become a highly significant
differentiating strategy.
Flexibility and traditional academic positions
The ageing and numerically static academic workforce has, in the last decade, coped with almost
200,000 additional students (equivalent full-time students) (Figure 4, p5) and in order to do so work
practices have changed. Academic work has become increasingly disaggregated, so that the lecturer
may no longer be in charge of teaching from conceptual development to assessment, but the academic
worker may instead deal with only one element such as the development of online tutorials or
assessment (Coaldrake and Stedman, 1999).
4
Figure 3
% Staff FTE by work contract, 1995 - 2004
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Full-time
40%
Fractional FT
Actual Casual
30%
20%
10%
Estimated casual
FTE for 2004.
0%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
(DEST statistics 1995-2004)
2
Figure 4
Growth in university student numbers 1993 – 2003
2003
1998
1993
1000000
900000
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
(Yerbury, 2005)
5
The disaggregation of academic work has become evident in research as well as teaching. Teambased research in areas of science and health science has traditionally involved a type of
disaggregation which has only more recently become common in the humanities and social sciences.
However, even in these conventionally individualistic areas, pressure on PhD completion rates and on
securing grant funding has stimulated separation of tasks such as data entry, literature review and
quantitative analysis. A caricature of the changing nature of academic work in both the core areas of
teaching and research is from the master craftsman (perhaps an appropriately masculine term) to the
Fordist production worker.
The changing nature of academic work has resulted in a number of related trends. Clearly, the
productivity of academic work has risen, as staff deal with increasing number of students. This
productivity is shown crudely by the increase in student: staff ratios, from 15.3 in 1995 to 21.1 in
2003. The student numbers, and the student: staff ratios have, in the last decade, increased by about
38%. Even taking into account the under-reporting of staff teaching offshore, there is a clear sense
within universities of an intensification of work, related not only to teaching loads but research
expectations and reporting and accountability requirements. At the same time as academic work has
intensified, its status has fallen as it has become more Fordist, more feminised and relatively less well
paid. Finally, the differentiation between academic staff roles and general or professional staff roles
has diminished.
The blurring of general into academic staff roles arises from the emphasis on good governance, risk
management, financial viability, quality assurance, business intelligence and online management
systems. These imperatives have enhanced the significance of general/professional staff contribution
to the effective running and the core business of the university. The blurring of academic into general
professional staff roles is particularly noticeable in teaching-related tasks such as web development,
curriculum design, and assessment; and in research-related tasks of data entry and analysis. Moreover
it is becoming increasingly important for academics to understand the context in which they operate
and particularly so for academic leaders such as Professors and Heads of Schools as their work
environment has become more managerial and accountable and less autonomous and collegial.
The traditional academic role is not necessarily a fertile breeding ground for good managers. One of
the immediate staffing issues that excites HR Directors and Vice-Chancellors alike is the calibre of
Heads of Schools who need to be both academic leaders and managers of multi-faceted, multi-million
dollar businesses operating in a rapidly changing environment. In the last few years there has been an
almost complete turn-around from Heads of Schools elected from amongst their peers to Heads of
Schools appointed to the role with appropriate training and support. Management development has
become increasingly important for this group. Universities are responding to their changing role by
6
implementing individual employment relationships or separate agreements. It seems clear that
effective management and leadership will become ever more significant as the generational shift
unfolds.
Not only have academic and professional staff roles blurred, but their relative status has shifted from a
service/support relationship to one of mutual dependence and respect. At the University of South
Australia, this mutuality is evident at a number of levels. At the School level, School Executive
Officers play a key role at a higher level than the traditional department secretary to manage casual
and technical staff, accountability and program management. At the middle management level, the
Heads of Schools and Directors of University-wide units have an annual joint retreat. Their agenda
for this year includes the University’s online strategy, research and international benchmarking, and
discussion on the cultures of management. At the Senior Management level, a flat management
structure incorporates both academic and portfolio Pro Vice Chancellors and Executive Directors to
work together to take joint responsibility for decisions. This is particularly important at a strategic
level in considering explicitly the resource implications of academic decisions.
One approach to injecting greater flexibility in universities is through the development of new roles
and new ways of managing and organising work. Over the last decade not only has there been relative
stability in the contracts of academic staff, which have remained predominantly full-time and
inflexible, but there has been arguably even less change in the types of positions advertised. There is a
need for positions which straddle the academic/general staff divide at all levels in a way which
diminishes workload and enhances productivity. Many universities are now exploring the
effectiveness of forms of group practice in generating and delivering academic work. This form of
work organisation has offered enhanced opportunities for hybrid roles. At the University of South
Australia such positions range from Program Support Officers (HEO 5) to my own position as PVC:
Organisational Strategy and Change. However, the proportion of such hybrid and new leadership
positions remains relatively small and a critical mass will be necessary for real change to become
evident.
Coupled with the focus on changes in the organisation of work, is a matching concern for
strengthening the capabilities of the workforce. The disaggregation and reorganisation of work
practices has emphasised a growing need for management and leadership capabilities. Academic roles
now require new skills including project management (of both curriculum development and research
applications), managing through influence and well-rounded approaches to time and life/work balance.
The changing external environment demands entrepreneurial skills and the capacity to capitalise on
innovation in creative ways.
7
Organisational renewal, new capabilities and Generation-X
The current demographic profile of the academic labour force and its impending change over the next
decade signal a generational shift which will be not so much a staffing issue but more like a wholesale
cultural change. In this brief discussion stereotypes of the baby boomer and Generation-X cohorts
have some potential utility. It is well known that the baby boomers (born 1946-64) have worked hard,
been good corporate citizens, overachievers at the expense of family and relationships, solid
consumers and to some extent have been spat out both from the corporate machine and from the myth
of the happy nuclear family.
The stereotypes of Generation-X (born 1965 to 1979, i.e. today’s under-40s) exhibit a typical reaction
to the experiences of their parents. It is argued that Generation-X is more flexible; more likely to have
multiple careers; with much more greatly developed skills of time and life-sharing as well as technical
literacy (Henry n.d.). Gen-Xers have much less time for the corporate machine, being more interested
in sharing knowledge, mentoring/coaching and ongoing learning. These are the portfolio workers and
the early career researchers. Compared to the baby boomers they are less hung up on technical
competence and more interested in soft skills such as communications, conflict resolution and
managing through influence (Henry n.d.). They want training to make them more marketable, and are
not afraid of online learning. Growing up in a more diverse society, they are more welcoming of
diversity (Weisman 2004). Avril Henry (n.d.) has argued that the under-40s can expect to have three
careers and work for eight employers. We know already that the proportion of under-40s in Australian
universities has actually declined over the last ten years. Gen-Xers have some of the capabilities
sought by universities: a combination of technical and soft skills, combined with a more flexible
approach to employment relationships.
It is imperative for universities to prepare now for the generational shift. It has been argued that a
significant plus is the creation of a well-structured intergenerational leadership team (Crawford 2004).
Its characteristics need to include enhanced university-wide communication and dissemination of
information, recognising the reality of the increased ease of access to information for Gen-X. To cater
for the new generation, it will be more than ever necessary to be open and inclusive, fostering balance
between work and family life, and encouraging guiding coaching and mentoring between the
generations.
In a recent report of the aspirations of early career academics in ATN universities, Greg Giles and
Jennifer Gilmour (2005) found that they acknowledged a wide range of capabilities required for
success. Not only did they feel they needed:

Energy, drive, passion and staying power

Curiosity creativity and innovation, and
8

Technical and professional currency.
But they also mentioned the need for:

Self discipline, time management and organisational skills

Project management skills

Effective use of ICT

Building collaborative networks to achieve outcomes

Leading through influence

Developing entrepreneurial skills, and

Balancing work and life.
While Gen-X will bring some of the capabilities needed into the next decade, they also bring some
new demands which will challenge and change the cultures of universities. The flipside of the
capacity for flexibility and mobility is instability and lack of continuity. It has been argued that GenXers will stay with an organisation where good managers or leaders are inclusive, collaborative and
build cohesive teams. To both attract and retain Gen-Xers, universities will need to develop a work
culture which values their capacities of lateral thinking and technical competence, while using the
baby boomers as mentors and coaches.
The perspectives of the early academics (Giles and Gilmour, 2005) are salutary and informative and
resonate with the ideas of Richard Florida on creative cities. In those creative places, he evangelises,
there is a combination of technology, talent and tolerance (Florida 2002). My argument is similar for
the creative universities of the next decade. In the imminent war for talent, technical and professional
currency can be assumed, and Gen-X will look for a diverse, stimulating and tolerant environment in
which to flourish creatively. The challenge for universities will be to bring together the Gen-X
perspectives and the needs of their organisations.
I have argued in this paper that university human resources for the next decade is not so much a
staffing issue but a key organisational strategy, which will link individual capabilities with
organisational requirements. Universities in managing the generational change will need to nurture
their staff from recruitment through retention to retirement, in a holistic approach that is more than just
staff development. The new generation will bring much greater flexibility in work practices and
specifications, in employment relationships and position descriptions. An increasingly flexible work
environment will require a quantum leap in management and leadership capability. An holistic
organisational staffing strategy will need to be supported by indicators, business intelligence and
management systems. Staffing investment over the next ten years will be crucial for the culture and
9
the success of the institution. It is not about procedures or even demography; but about culture,
change and positioning for the future.
References
Bridges W. 1994 The end of the job. Fortune 130, no 6: 62-74.
Coaldrake P. and Stedman L. 1999 Academic work in the twenty-first century: Changing roles and
policies. Canberra: DETYA.
Crawford, F. 2004 Passing the baton to Gen X. Macquarie University News, viewed 16 February
2005. http://www.pr.mq.edu.au/macnews/content.asp?Section=1&Edition=042004
DEST statistics http://www.dest.gov.au/
Florida R. 2002 The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.
Giles G. and Gilmour J. Building Partnerships, Finding Solutions: The ATN workforce in profile.
Paper presented to the ATN Conference, 10 Feb 2005.
Hall D.T. et al. 1996 The Career is Dead…Long Live the Career. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Henry A. n.d. Talking about our generations. Australian Institute of Management, viewed 16 February
2005. www.aimsa.com.au/newsletter_article_body.cfm?article_id=14
Hugo G. 2005 The Demography of Australia’s Academic Workforce: the ATN Universities. Paper
presented to the ATN Conference, 9-11 Feb 2005.
Lemke J.M. et al., 1995 New directions for corporate careers. Career Planning and Adult
Development Journal 11, no 2: 3-27.
Olsten Corp 1992 New Staffing Strategies for the 1990s. Westbury, NY: Olsten Corp.
Sears, A. 2003 Cogs in the Classroom Factory: the Changing Identity of Academic Labor. Canadian
Association of University Teachers, viewed 25 February 2005.
http://www.caut.ca/en/bulletin/issues/2003_sep/bookshelf/cogs.asp
Weisman, R. 2004 Tapping into Generation X. The Boston Globe, viewed 16 February 2005.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/03/1075776059125.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true
Winchester H.P.M., Browning L., Lorenzo S. and Chesterman C. 2005 in prep. An investigation of
barriers to promotion for academic women staff in Australian universities. Paper for the National
Colloquium of Senior Women Executives in Higher Education.
Yerbury D. 2005 Looking ahead to 2020: strengthening universities’ contribution to economic
prosperity. Presented at CEDA Adelaide Seminar 1 Mar 2005.
10