The Response - UWA Staff - The University of Western Australia

‘One of the ways the University could refine its approach to professional development and performance
management is by the introduction of a 360 degree performance review, especially for management staff, as
such a review will provide a multi-dimensional perspective. There would need to be policies in place, and more
importantly, implemented to ensure that feedback could be presented without fear of retribution.’
‘… research performance is being restricted through the lack of leadership and collaboration skill development
among staff. The quality of leadership training in the university is, frankly, appalling.’
‘To reach proposals 7 and 8, the UWA needs to provide better professional development and support to Heads
of School who need to make decisions about recruitment and performance management…. It would be good
if the Heads of School job goes to the best person, rather than the next academic on the list. Rewards and
management training, as well as lighter teaching loads and research requirements, are needed for this level of
management at UWA.’
Proposal 9: That the University review the interplay of organisational structure and budget principles in
order to promote effective action and co-operation across the University in the delivery of teaching and
research programs.
‘Structure and budget always need continual development – I look forward to implementing budget process
review findings. Re structure – Faculty and Schools – are there too many layers of government? Should Faculties
be profit centres, so to speak, and Schools be cost centres at most? Implications for Faculty and School
Managers and skill levels.’
‘Proposal 9 is absolutely crucial. Structures often determine behaviour – therefore, an excellent opportunity exists
now to improve the organisational structure and budgeting processes.’
‘We strongly support proposal 9. In particular, we highlight the lack of consistency and transparency across
different schools/faculties with respect to allocation of HDR and DEST funding for student supervision and
publications respectively. In order to increase research productivity, it is essential that transparent mechanisms be
put in place to reward such productivity.’
‘The basic idea underlying the Faculty Funding Model has the virtue of simplicity: funding goes to Faculties and
then Schools based on the units taught, students supervised, papers published, and so on. The problem is
that this sets Faculty against Faculty and School against School. [examples given of the problems faced by an
academic employed by more than one Faculty] In other words, while the rhetoric has been “One University”,
the reality from the Faculty Deans down has been a set of competing fiefdoms, which militates against genuine
collaboration and sharing of resources. Any new funding arrangement should, therefore, be assessed against the
criterion of whether it facilitates or hinders collaborations between Schools
and Faculties.’
‘Please don’t cut our administrative support. I’m having enough trouble achieving my teaching, research and
service outputs without having to do my own research finances and budget acquittals as it is.’
Proposal 10: That the University review the opportunities for international research co-operation, and
develop policies to further strengthen international research linkages.
‘Proposal 10 relates specifically to research but beyond reference to undergraduate study abroad you make
little explicit reference to the potential (inter)nationalising of our teaching….I have in mind also the question of
17 | www.uwa.edu.au