Refining the Hr Policy Framework to Support the Vision

[pic] Growing Esteem: Refining the HR Policy Framework to Support the Vision December 2010 Table of Contents 1Introduction3 2Background3 2. 1The environment we will be working in3 2. 1. 1External factors3 2. 1. 2Internal decisions and factors4 2. 1. 3The HR policy imperatives5 2. 2Where we are now5 2. 2. 1Our current staffing profile5 2. 2. 2Current performance7 2. 3The future8 2. 3. 1The goals of Growing Esteem 20108 2. 3. 2Supporting this vision through a refined HR Strategy9 3The refined HR policy framework9 3. 1Consultation and Feedback10 Priority areas for reform10 4. 1Improvement of the performance development framework11 4. 2Clarifying performance expectations12 4. 3Align work activity to ‘work focus categories’ and link these to performance expectations13 4. 4Supporting early career staff15 4. 5Classification issues - broad banding of professional staff classifications16 5Other policy issues17 5. 1Building flexibility - Classification issues17 5. 2Attracting and retaining highest quality staff17 5. 3Aligning performance – Probation and confirmation17 5. Investing in staff - Leadership and management development18 6Next Steps18 6. 1Governance of the implementation project18 6. 2Plan for areas of further work19 Appendix 1: Schematic diagram of the refined strategic HR Policy Framework20 Introduction We are all part of an institution with a proud record of scholarship and achievement. The University of Melbourne has a well deserved international reputation for research excellence and quality of student outcomes and we have demonstrated our capacity to innovate and lead higher education nationally.

Melbourne’s international standing and research prominence has enabled us to attract fine students and staff. We seek to lead through research, to educate for excellence and to connect and contribute through engagement. Substantial progress has been made towards achievement of our vision to be one of the world’s finest universities and we will need to continue to adapt and improve in pursuit of this vision.

The University’s strategy document Growing Esteem 2010, states: “For the University to realise the ambitions of a refined Growing Esteem strategy it needs people who share the vision and can achieve the actions required. “ Over the coming years we need to ensure that our research and teaching reputation remain among the best in the world in the face of increasing competition; to adapt our approach, to both teaching and our general interactions with students to support a greater proportion of graduate students; and to diversify our sources of revenue to support our endeavour.

Order custom essay Refining the Hr Policy Framework to Support the Vision with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

It is in this context that we seek to articulate our HR strategies and refine our HR Policy Framework so that we can support and develop our staff to achieve the excellence in performance that provides individual satisfaction and collectively will maintain and grow Melbourne’s standing. This paper identifies the major strategic and policy issues which need to be addressed to position us for the future through a refinement of the current HR management framework over the next three years. This paper provides a blueprint for action to guide HR policy development over the next three years.

From this framework, detailed policies and procedures will be specified, and there will be opportunity for staff and other stakeholders to provide further input to these as they are progressively developed. These policies will be implemented at the local level within the University and therefore the support that will be provided to our supervisors and managers who are responsible for the day to day interactions with our staff will be vital to their success in bringing about the required changes. Background 1 The environment we will be working in

The environment we will operate in over the next 5-10 years will change significantly and both external factors and the internal decisions made in our plans will impact on the staff profile we will need to prosper in the new environment and the HR policies and procedures that we need to support our staff. 1 External factors Changes in the external environment provide us with challenges and opportunities. Increased globalisation of the higher education sector will lead to stronger competition for the best students and staff.

This competition for staff will include professional staff, particularly specialists, who will also be sought after in the wider economy. Strategies will need to be implemented to attract, develop and retain the best academic and professional staff who can plan, deliver and support an excellent learning experience for students, and also demonstrate innovation and a capacity to thrive in a changing environment. Technological change will also open new avenues for both education and research and the way in which work is performed in general and aids networking.

The increasing pace of knowledge acquisition will require review of the range of information taught in courses and in the way it is delivered. On the research side, funding models and the interest of governments in finding solutions to major societal problems drives greater collaboration - both in the development of cross functional teams within the University and also in increased engagement with other universities, other research bodies and industry.

The national higher education policy environment is placing more emphasis on nation-building through growth in graduate outputs, job readiness of graduates, social inclusion, funding for performance, and international standardisation of award nomenclature and content. There is also greater emphasis on engagement of universities with their broader communities. All of these factors and the funding regimes which support the national policy decisions are focussed on growth, which is at odds with our chosen direction to limit growth in student numbers.

The local policy framework is also influenced by continuing fluctuation in the global financial environment. The international education company IDP Education is now predicting a considerable decline in international student numbers coming to Australia in the medium term which will impact on the University’s capacity to replace lost local revenue from this source. The ageing academic and professional staff profile across the sector and within the University more specifically means that we will have to attract, develop and retain high quality staff to replace staff lost through natural attrition. Internal decisions and factors Melbourne has taken the decision to limit growth and to eventually reduce student numbers to a more stable and manageable size in order to provide the highest quality education to our students. Consequently we will need to build other revenue streams and to find ways of doing things more efficiently. We will need to be both flexible and entrepreneurial and be able to engage well with the external community. Over this time we will also significantly change our student profile, from the current ratio of 70:30 undergraduate to postgraduate students to achieve a 50:50 balance.

It will be challenging to attract high quality postgraduate students in these numbers. This more mature student population will be more demanding and will have high expectations of teaching and support and of their interactions with our administrative staff. Their assessment of the quality of the teaching they receive, their overall satisfaction with their experience and their capacity to get good jobs will impact on our rankings both nationally and internationally against our competitors. The HR policy imperatives This likely future environment highlights the need to consider how together we can increase the focus on performance and productivity and ensure that each staff member achieves their goals and contributes to the University in the way best suited to their strengths and expertise. This will require a strong alignment between individual goals and performance and the University’s objectives and a different approach to developing and managing performance.

These changes must be introduced in ways which protect and preserve the fundamental values of the institution, such as meritocracy, collegiality and academic freedom. 2 Where we are now 1 Our current staffing profile Melbourne’s permanent staff number in excess of seven thousand, divided almost evenly between academic and professional staff and is supported by over two and a half thousand additional casual staff. Our academic and professional staff include many talented, committed and long-serving people.

It is our staff, their interactions with each other, with students and with local, national and international communities that establish and define our reputation and position in the global higher education sector. Staff are employed in positions classified according to the current academic and professional staff classification structures, specified in the University’s Collective Agreement. In addition to our paid staff, a large number of honorary and visiting academic staff contribute to the life and scholarship of the University.

Our current staffing profile has the following characteristics: • We have a large number of early career academics, with approximately 60% of the University’s academic staff employed at Levels A and B; • These early career academics are predominantly employed on fixed term contracts. This position changes with seniority, with the majority of academic staff at Level C and above employed on a continuing basis; • In contrast, most professional staff are employed on a continuing basis, with 55% of professional staff employed at HEW Levels 5 to 7;

Figure 1 : Current distribution of Academic Staff by Classification (headcount, excluding casuals) |[pic] |% Staff Fixed term | | | | | | | |Figure 2 : Distribution of Fixed term and Continuing Professional Staff by |Level A. | |Classification (headcount) |96. | |[pic] | | | |Level B. | | |71. 8 | | | | | |Level C. | | |42. | | | | | |Level D. | | |25. 3 | | | | | |Level E. | |27. 9 | | | | | | | • The growth in the University’s staff numbers from 2005 to 2008 has largely been the result of an increase in casual staff numbers. • Over 10 % of the University’s academic work was performed by casual staff in 2009.

Casual tutors are responsible for a significant portion of teaching into new generation degrees. • The ratio of professional to academic staff has remained relatively steady since 2007 and is below the average for Australian universities and the Group of Eight. This is largely because of the way the University classifies Level A and B research support staff as academic rather than professional staff unlike many other universities. • Approximately a third of both professional staff and academic staff are over 50 years of age; Figure 3: Age distribution of academic and professional staff pic] Academic Staff by level [pic] Professional Staff by level • Approximately 55% of Melbourne academics are male; • Women make up the majority of academic staff at Level A, but by senior levels the position is reversed. Although Melbourne performs better than the sector average in terms of the percentage of women at Levels D and E and at HEW10, women remain underrepresented at PVC and DVC levels as well as amongst membership of the Senior Executive more generally.

The appropriate consideration of “performance relative to opportunity” for staff with significant external responsibilities, non-traditional career paths, or less than full-time working hours remains an ongoing challenge; • A higher proportion of our female staff is employed on a part-time basis than the sector average; • In 2008 and 2009 over half of all professional staff positions have also been filled internally while 56% of self-initiated departures from the University in 2009 from this group were from staff with less than 3 years service.

The corresponding percentage for academic staff for self-initiated early departure is 51%. This suggests a turnover of newer staff to the University and is a concern if these staff are of high quality and being attracted by better offers from other employers. Level A academic staff and professional staff at HEW levels 3-5 are over-represented in these departure statistics suggesting a need to provide better opportunities and support for good early career academics and professional staff; and • Staffing costs per FTE are increasing at a faster rate than student load.

Until recently this has been compensated for by revenue growth but as the environmental scan above shows, this may not be possible in the future. 2 Current performance Melbourne is well ranked in international rankings and we improved our position in the most recent round of the Shanghai Jiao Tong and Times Higher Education Rankings. In the Jiao Tong rankings Melbourne was ranked 62nd in the world, the second Australian institution after ANU at 59th. This ranking system uses weighted scores associated with alumni, awards, citations, and publications.

Melbourne scores better than ANU in the alumni and awards categories but has lower scores in each of the research categories. In the Times Higher Education rankings Melbourne is ranked first of the Australian institutions, at 36th in the world listing. A new methodology was used in 2010 for this ranking based on teaching (the learning environment), international mix (staff and student ratios), industry income, research volume, income and reputation, and citation impact. The quality of teaching within the University is vital to our students’ educational outcomes.

While the Times Higher Education teaching scores for Melbourne are higher than our national competitors we have some way to go to reach the level of our international benchmarking partners. The CEQ good teaching scale also indicates room for improvement. While these rankings vary and are not absolute indicators of teaching performance, it is clear that teaching performance has a significant impact on the level of satisfaction of our students. Improvement in our overall teaching performance will contribute to a more positive learning environment for our students.

Nationally in 2008 and 2009 Melbourne was ranked first in the country for research income and publications however, if these measures were viewed per capita (across the total number of research and teaching and research staff), then our leading position would not be maintained. We also performed well in nearly all discipline categories in the first trial ERA outcomes gaining scores of 4 or 5 in nearly all discipline categories. Our research performance has a significant impact on our rankings and on our ability to attract research income and quality staff and students.

While we should be justifiably proud of that performance it will be more difficult to maintain this position in the future due to likely improvements in the performance of our competitors. We could raise our position in the international rankings and maintain our premier position nationally if there was improved average performance in winning grants and publishing across a broader spectrum of the academic staff complement. 3 The future 1 The goals of Growing Esteem 2010

Melbourne has articulated the outcomes we wish to achieve by 2015 in Growing Esteem 2010, including that: • Melbourne will have an academic workforce sustainable in number and quality and outstanding in its achievement; • Melbourne will be top ranked in all key national indicators of research excellence and impact; • Melbourne will be top ranked in relation to research higher degree recruitment and outcomes; • Through key partnerships we will have maximised the global impact of our research; • Melbourne will be ranked in the top five against all national learning and teaching and student satisfaction indicators; • Melbourne will be providing the best graduate experience in the country according to appropriate national indicators; • Staff will feel able to contribute broadly to our vision of interaction with wider society through knowledge partnership, advancement and international activities; and • Melbourne will have talented, diverse staff who share a common vision and whose skills and knowledge equip them to achieve the University’s goal of being one of the best international universities in the world.

As has been shown Melbourne is currently well placed in relation to some of these measures of performance, but given the increasingly competitive and global higher education environment, to maintain or improve this position will require improvements in leadership and management and to performance management and development, recognition of the diversity of professional and academic roles, greater recognition of the efforts of our staff and innovative approaches to retaining, and nurturing the best teachers and researchers and flexible and innovative professional staff. Specifically, amongst other things, we need to: • Emphasise research excellence not just research activity and improve he overall consistency of research performance and the number of high citation researchers who count among the world’s top 250 in their fields; • Understand, reward and promote research excellence and creativity, provide career development opportunities and mentoring and develop a research recruitment and retention strategy; • Improve the consistency of the quality of teaching and the student experience across the University while allowing for increased specialisation of academic staff in this area; and, • Promote engagement activities as an equal partner to research and learning and teaching. 2 Supporting this vision through a refined HR Strategy To flourish in this environment and achieve these ambitious outcomes we will need to more actively manage our staff profile over the next five years through a refined HR Strategy. Our HR strategy must enable us to achieve the level of performance necessary if we are to be one of the world’s finest universities. We will need to: • Develop our existing staff; • Commit resources to attract and retain staff of the highest quality; • Put in place appropriate succession planning; Provide classification structures which recognise diverse career paths and allow specialisation by both academic and professional staff; • Nurture early career academic and professional staff and provide them with clear career paths in the university; • Address the issues relating to the casualisation of our staff complement and the increasing proportion of fixed term staff, while retaining flexible working arrangements; • Recognise and develop the partnership between academic and professional staff and build the ability of staff to work seamlessly with colleagues from other disciplines and institutions; • Develop and recruit change-adept and flexible academic and professional staff; • Enhance the support provided for the core activities of the University by improving performance of the central enabling divisions through professional development and performance review; • Develop and improve systems which reward and recognise excellent performance in learning and teaching, research, engagement and leadership and in professionals disciplines; and •

Continue to encourage diversity and address issues relating to the participation of women, particularly at higher levels of the University. These actions will need to occur in the context of managing staffing and non-salary costs. The current HR Policy Framework needs to be refined to align with this revised HR Strategy to allow greater flexibility in the way work is organised and to support the development and performance of high achieving staff. The refined HR policy framework The refined HR Policy Framework which addresses this strategy links the following components (and is shown schematically in Appendix 1): • The strategy presented in section 2. 3. 2; The necessary organisational and individual capabilities to underpin the achievement of this strategy –a commitment to excellence; flexibility and a willingness to collaborate and cooperate with internal and external partners (these capabilities were well supported by staff during consultation) ; • Broad HR focus areas– these are the areas where our HR actions will be focussed to assist in building performance and include building flexibility; attracting and retaining the highest quality staff; aligning performance with the University’s objectives; and investing in staff; • The specific high priority HR practices which will have most impact on the achievement of the University’s strategy and the development of the people required for the future; and • Enablers that will support reform. The enablers to support reform include improved HR support, including the provision of accurate, timely and high level advice for our managers and supervisors, to assist them in working with our staff to continue to build capability and best direct efforts towards our goal of being one of the world’s finest universities. 1 Consultation and Feedback A range of stakeholders were consulted about the refinement of the current HR Policy Framework through a number of forums, including: • the 2010 Heads and Deans Conference; • Senior Executive; individual and group consultations with Deans, Deputy Vice-Chancellors, Pro Vice-Chancellors, senior administrative staff and members of the HR Professional Practice Area; • Academic Board; • the 2010 Planning and Budget Conference (PBC); • facilitated focus groups of staff randomly selected from across the University; and, • a four week consultation period during which staff and unions could review the proposed Framework and provide anonymous feedback. Approximately 200 staff provided feedback via an online survey, which included the capacity to make free text comment. Approximately 60% of responses received were from Professional staff.

Respondents represented all levels of the University, all budget divisions and included continuing, fixed term and casual staff. Staff were generally supportive of the HR framework. While there were some differences of opinion expressed, on the whole there was sound endorsement of the priorities that are set out in the following section. Priority areas for reform A number of priority areas for reform are outlined in the following sections. Although they form an integrated set of actions, the first are those considered by stakeholders to be of highest initial priority in contributing to individual and collective performance. The immediate focus of reform will be: 1. improvement of the performance development framework; 2. larification of performance expectations; 3. alignment of academic work activity to ‘work focus categories’ and linking these to performance expectations; 4. support for early career staff; and, 5. professional staff classification structures. As these areas are the highest initial priorities for reform, this paper canvasses them in more detail. Other policy issues, including leadership and management strategy, which will also be integral to the refined HR Policy Framework are identified later in this paper. As specific policies are developed relating to each of these proposals there will be additional opportunity for consultation with staff.

This consultation will be undertaken in accordance with: • standard processes for consulting with staff and unions over changes to HR policy; and/or, • the specific requirements of Schedule 6 of the Agreement which contemplates reviews of the i. Performance Development Framework; and, ii. the academic and professional staff classification structures. The consultation required under Schedule 6 of the Agreement will be conducted by a Working Group comprised of four representatives of each of the University and the NTEU in accordance with agreed processes for consultation and negotiation. The review process and outcomes will be implemented no later than 30 June 2011.

The priority areas that received most support from staff during consultation were: • support for early career staff • leadership and management development • clarifying individual performance expectations, and • improved HR support. Unless otherwise identified, the proposals discussed are relevant to both professional and academic staff members, though some have specific relevance to one or other category of staff. 1 Improvement of the performance development framework The current PDF system is similar to those used in many other universities. Its application across the University is widespread and the incidence of participation is monitored.

Effective performance management of staff allows the University to set clear objectives against which to develop and reward good performers and to identify, support and manage under-performing staff. Sound performance management of both academic and professional staff is central to the University being able to achieve the objectives and the ranking targets it has set in Growing Esteem 2010 as documented in section 2. 3. 1. Sound performance management has particular benefit for staff where it enables development needs to be clearly identified and addressed. Key policy issues relating to staff performance management in the University include: • the nature of the performance management system; and, • its effective application and use as a development tool. To improve the performance development framework we will: align performance, confirmation and promotion outcomes for academic staff so that they represent stages in a performance continuum rather than isolated events; • align position descriptions, probationary criteria and objectives specified through the PDF for professional staff; • develop a streamlined and simpler performance management system; • set performance objectives and requirements which are tailored to the work required of the staff member and include consideration of performance relative to opportunity issues; • rate performance against the different aspects of a staff member’s job rather than just one general rating; • replace current performance assessment rating descriptors to reflect the relative achievement of performance expectations (e. g. he “satisfactory” rating would become “has met performance objectives”); • better align the PDF with business plans and with departmental and University goals; • develop more objective performance measures and greater capacity to distinguish between levels of performance; • provide a higher level of HR support to provide managers and supervisors with the skills to develop staff and address performance issues; • ensure that we take a fair, firm, timely and more consistent approach to treatment of underperformance; • consider requiring Budget Divisions to establish a panel to benchmark and moderate for consistency and fairness of performance management across the Division[1]; and, • provide a framework in which faculties and other budget divisions can develop performance management schemes specific to their area. Additionally, for academic staff we will: recognise individual strengths of academic staff in the core areas of teaching, research and engagement and rewarding staff for excellence in those areas; • introduce appropriate descriptors for academic staff work functions or focus areas; and • align staff actual effort with these work functions. Aspects of this reform will be undertaken in accordance with the review process outlined at Schedule 6 of the University of Melbourne Collective Agreement 2010. Other aspects will be subject to the standard processes for consulting with staff and unions over changes to HR policy. 2 Clarifying performance expectations Clear performance expectations are essential to guide staff effort and allow staff to understand how their work contributes to the strategies and goals of the University.

They also support the quality, consistency and improvement of performance and allow for self-monitoring which contributes to job satisfaction. To clarify performance expectations we will: • Develop general performance expectations for academic and professional staff (e. g. The Melbourne Academic, The Melbourne Professional). These statements will specify in general terms the University’s expectations of each group and its staff as a whole (including broad behavioural expectations); • Remove the University-wide definition of research activity and replacing this with faculty or discipline specific definitions; • Set clear and measurable performance standards for teaching, research, ngagement and leadership on a Faculty basis to guide performance against which individuals can be assessed; • Over time establish common performance standards for professional job families (eg finance, IT, marketing, HR, administration etc) and • Align individual objectives with specific goals for the relevant budget division. This reform will be undertaken in accordance with the standard processes for consulting with staff and unions over changes to HR policy. 3 Align work activity to ‘work focus categories’ and link these to performance expectations Academic work at the University is varied, has diversified and will continue to do so. While the majority of staff combine teaching with research and an engagement component, there are staff who focus solely on research and others who predominantly teach.

The academic staff complement includes clinicians and specialist curriculum developers, others who focus on engagement with the wider community or on the provision of specialist services and others who have management roles. Despite the general expectation for Melbourne academics, some of these roles may not have a requirement or an expectation for a research component. There is recognition of the diverse nature of academic work in both our promotion criteria and the Minimum Standards for Academic Levels (MSALs)[2] which provide for academics to contribute to research and/or scholarship and/or teaching (that is to focus on one or more aspects of an academic career). Nonetheless, our research focus, although central to the University, may not allow sufficient recognition of academics with strengths outside this area.

An alternative approach is to recognise that not all academics for various reasons are equally involved with teaching and research or are required to produce similar research outputs and that it can be difficult for academics to manage the competing priorities of teaching, research, community engagement and administrative duties. While recognising that most will continue to combine teaching with research and will meet expectations in both areas, within a single academic classification, staff with a primary focus on teaching or -activities other than research should be appropriately recognised in terms of this primary focus and associated outputs. The University has recognised in its objectives and targets that the quality of teaching is vital to our aspiration to offer an outstanding educational experience.

This can partly be achieved by providing a strong career path for those staff who have an excellent record in teaching, or who have demonstrated the capacity to develop this and who are less focused on a research career. Teaching specialist roles have already been created at a number of leading Australian universities to recognise excellence in teaching. The teaching specialist roles require the staff members appointed to them to make a substantial contribution to learning and teaching, educational design and delivery, and educational leadership. Such roles reflect high performance in teaching and are not created to support and manage staff who are not performing at an appropriate level.

During consultation, it was proposed that academic staff within the University should have the capacity to be appointed to positions with a focus on teaching or academic support/leadership based on the excellence of their performance in these areas. This proposition received broad support. Staff who are, or who have demonstrated the capacity to become excellent teachers and who have made a practice of innovation and scholarship in teaching in their discipline could accept an offer to take up a teaching-focused role. Other staff who have academic roles, with no specific requirement for research, could accept an offer to take up an ‘other specialist’ role.

For example, staff who undertake management roles outside a particular faculty and who are employed to pursue a particular mission for the University (such as the DVC and PVC positions) would be considered part of this focus area. Academic staff within the University will therefore be identified as belonging to one of the following work focus categories based on the requirements of their role and subject to meeting any relevant requirements for the focus category: • Research-focussed • Teaching and Research • Teaching specialist • Other specialist. Appropriately for a research led institution such as Melbourne, the majority of academic staff would remain within their current teaching and research or research focused categories, with performance expectations appropriate to the relevant category and faculty or discipline.

Such reform allows for the retention of a single academic classification structure, along with its ranks, levels and salaries, but provides greater recognition of the diversity of work undertaken by individuals within that classification structure. The capacity to move between work focus categories over the course of an academic career is provided for, to allow for broad and flexible careers. Movement between the groups will take into account individual performance and development needs as determined through the performance development system. Teaching and other specialist roles may be offered after joint consideration of the interests, qualifications and capacity of the staff member and the specific needs of the Department, School or Faculty.

At present the University has a number of staff classified as Level A and B academic staff who are categorised as Research Only staff but who are supporting the research endeavour rather than undertaking original research. In most other universities this group is generally classified as professional staff rather than academic. A change in classification for a number of these staff will ensure more consistent reporting between the University of Melbourne and its competitors. As previously discussed, work will also be considered at a later date around further development of the job family categories for professional staff, with appropriate expectations being developed by level and job family. To better recognise the diversity of academic work we will: introduce a new academic work focus category of Teaching Specialist to complement the existing categories of Teaching & Research, Research Focussed and Other specialists; • identify academic staff within the University by work focus category; • develop and apply performance expectations appropriate to the relevant category and faculty and discipline; We will also: • further develop the job family categories for professional staff. This reform will be subject to the standard processes for consulting with staff and unions over changes to HR policy. 4 Supporting early career staff We need to support the development of our early career professional and academic staff, to provide a positive employment experience and assist them in becoming productive members of staff. Graduate entry level for professional staff is most commonly at HEW5 level, and mentoring and other professional development is important at this stage. We need to be able to provide career paths for the development of specialist expertise.

This emphasises the need for a sound performance development program which clarifies objectives and identifies career needs. While, when taken together, growth in fixed term and continuing academic and professional staff in recent years has been relatively modest, the percentage growth in casual staff from 2007 to 2009 is more than double this figure. The key issues for casual early career academic staff are the difficulty in establishing an academic career when there is limited certainty of employment and the concentration of casual staff at lower levels of the academic classification structures and into particular areas, notably teaching into New Generation Degrees.

The New Generation Degrees will account for approximately half our coursework student load and their success will be critically important to the future success of the Growing Esteem strategy. The quality of the teaching of undergraduate students is important to, student engagement and outcomes. Improved certainty of employment for excellent staff teaching into the New Generation Degrees should be considered. Pathways for research higher degree students into an academic career also need to be improved, particularly given the need for renewal of the academic workforce. We need to recognise that casual and sessional staff, as well as research students, make a significant contribution to University teaching effort and that early career academics in general require support. To better support early career staff we will: address the barriers to employing early career staff on more secure forms of employment; • improve access to and quality of professional development and mentoring programs for early career staff, particularly in relation to supporting early career staff develop capabilities in relation to teaching (where relevant); • employ research students as a preference for casual and sessional roles; • seek agreement to create a new form of employment which provides greater employment security for early career staff; and, • support budget divisions to increase the number of Early Career Development Fellowships. [3] The introduction of the proposed academic work focus categories will also provide clearer career paths for early career academics. A teaching-specialist academic category would better facilitate the appointment of teaching-specialists as course coordinators (on other than on a casual basis) to support the teaching of large New Generation Degree subjects. This reform will be subject to the standard processes for consulting with staff and unions over changes to HR policy. Classification issues - broad banding of professional staff classifications Broad banding professional staff classification categories will improve career pathways, provide greater flexibility in staffing and aid retention of good staff. There are currently 10 classification levels for professional staff. Staff can progress to a higher classification by applying for another job which is graded at the higher level or by applying for reclassification where higher level duties are required by the work area. These options may not be available within all work areas and so high performing professional staff may seek employment elsewhere, including outside the University.

In order to rationalise the large number of classification categories for professional staff and to provide better career pathways it is proposed that a new professional staff classification structure be introduced consisting of four broad bands reflecting the level of responsibility and specialisation of professional positions in the University. |New Broad Band |Former Classification |Number of Pay Points within the band | |4 |HEW Level 10 A - 10E |3 | |3 |HEW Level 8 – Level 10 Base |9 | |2 |HEW Level 5 - 7 |9 | |1 |HEW Level 1 - 4 |9 |

In order to improve the classification structure for professional staff we will: • reform the structure to provide for a number of broad bands within which movement would be based on performance; • reduce the number of pay points within each band in most cases with the effect of increasing the salary differential between each pay point and make movement between pay points more meaningful; • develop clear performance standards for each broad band; • align position descriptions with each level of the system; • require movement between bands to be based on assessment of an application for a position in the higher band; and • introduce soft barriers within the bands that staff would have to satisfy in order to progress.

This reform will be undertaken in accordance with the review process outlined at Schedule 6 of the University of Melbourne Collective Agreement 2010. Other policy issues There are also other policy issues which will be included in the revised HR Policy Framework and are important to assist our current staff to achieve their potential and to help the University remain attractive to prospective staff. They will be the subject of further consultation and development through appropriate working groups. The issues identified below are grouped into the key focus areas of the Policy Framework shown in Appendix 1. 1 Building flexibility - Classification issues Policy action |Timing | |Introduce additional performance based salary points at the top of current academic and professional classification levels|2011 | |Aid attraction and retention and strengthen the link between reward and performance for level E staff, possibly by |2011 | |providing additional salary steps at this level | | |Explore introduction of a single salary spine for academic and professional staff |2012 | |Revise academic nomenclature |2012 | 2 Attracting and retaining highest quality staff Policy action |Timing | |Review and determine new reward and recognition policies , including implementing a reward for performance structure to |2011 | |recognise, reward and retain high performing staff | | |Review and revise the staff equity and diversity strategies and action plans |2011 | |Improve Workforce Planning and develop succession plans |2011 | |Review and determine new recruitment procedures to attract good staff |2011 | |Talent management program |2011 | 3 Aligning performance – Probation and confirmation |Policy action |Timing | |Improve linkages between promotion, confirmation/probation and the PDF process |2011 | 4 Investing in staff - Leadership and management development Effective leadership has a strong impact on staff satisfaction and is vitally important to the achievement of our goals.

To ensure that we have effective leadership and management from our senior staff, we need to: • clarify expectations of our leaders and managers; • develop a broader skill set amongst staff to manage complex people matters; • provide a business skills set to our managers including business planning and budgeting; • incorporate greater levels of mentoring and coaching by peers; • foster an open culture that embraces and supports change and diversity; • provide more specialised development for professional roles; and • deliver development programs differently so that skills more easily translate into the workplace. Future policy issues for consideration are listed below. Policy action |Timing | |Develop a Leadership and Management Development Strategy |2011 | |Involving: | | |A clear statement of the nature of leadership and management capabilities; | | |Formal coaching and mentoring; | | |Processes for identification of high potential talent and accelerated development plans for high performers; | | |Quality standards for development program design and delivery; and, | | |Dedicated resourcing and funding to address any identified skills gap. | |Develop and gain agreement to a behavioural competency statement |2011 | Next Steps 1 Governance of the implementation project The further refinement of the revised HR Policy Framework will be overseen by a Steering Committee jointly chaired by the Provost and the Senior Vice-Principal. There will also be a number of related work streams each led by a project owner within HR Chancellery and coordinated by a project director, reporting to the Executive Director, HR. These work streams will draw on expertise across the University from faculties and professional practice areas. Specific reference groups mentioned above have also been established to rovide a forum for the further development and testing of policy and procedural initiatives and implementation plans. The Academic Reference group will specifically inform work around the introduction of academic work focus categories within the academic classification system, associated changes to the Performance Development Framework and measures to support early career academics. A Professional Staff Reference Group will similarly inform work on broad-banding the professional staff classification structure as well as the associated changes to the Performance Development Framework and other key matters for professional staff. 2 Plan for areas of further work The following is a broad action plan for the refined HR Policy Framework. Timing |Policy initiatives to be completed | |By June 2011 |Leadership and Management strategy and revised program development | | |Negotiation completed with NTEU and staff about proposed changes to PDF and classification structures | | |canvassed above | | |Additional support in place for managers in managing performance | |By Dec 2011 |Establishment of links between promotion, confirmation/probation and the PDF process | | |Leadership and Management strategy and programs finalised | | |Behavioural competency statement developed (with initial emphasis on Leadership and Management | | |competencies) | | |Broad banding of professional staff classification structure (subject to negotiation with NTEU) | | |Improved Workforce Planning and succession plans in place | |Career paths: | | |Program for support of early career academics (including casuals) developed | | |Review of transfer and secondment policies | | |Career paths identified within professional staff job families | | |Review of reward and recognition policies complete | | |Talent management program developed | |2012 |Review of recruitment practices complete | | |Competencies incorporated into HR processes such as performance management, recruitment and selection and | | |learning pathways | | |Consultation on possible changes to academic classification structure (for example, varying number of | | |increment points; overlapping bands) prior to negotiation of the next Collective Agreement | | |Consultation on possible revision of academic nomenclature | | |Employer brand developed to promote employment with the University | | |Revision of Staff Equity and Diversity strategy completed | Appendix 1: Schematic diagram of the refined strategic HR Policy Framework [pic] ----------------------- [1] The supervisor is responsible for performance management practices, however, it is envisaged that the panel is responsible for the higher level consistent implementation of performance management. Some faculties have moved to implement such practices already. [2] MSALs form part of the

University’s Collective Agreement [3] Early Career Development Fellowships are a new category of fixed-term employment introduced through the new Collective Agreement. The University must advertise at least 28 such Fellowships before 30 June 2012. Early Career Development Fellowships were designed to provide a more secure form of employment for Level A and B staff who are predominantly employed on a casual or fixed-term basis. These Fellowships will include a structured development program providing training, supervision and appropriate career and professional development opportunities to enable early career academics to establish an academic career.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer