The Ranking

There exist a number of ranking systems that looks into various factors to measure its performance. Such systems identify, reward and remove top and bottom performers in the game. Not all Universities are equal, not even among the ivory towers. The need to segregate the cream from the masses by giving ranks to each and every university seems to be the most effective way currently to help parents and students to make their best choice.

From my experiences in a number of local Universities, university ranking is synonymous with the quality of education it offers which further translates to its very sustainability. A good ranking speaks prestige, the institution’s commitment to education and the list goes on but the bottom line is:

How’s our business performance?

It cannot be argued that Universities of the 21st century has but one common challenge – financial sustainability.

The Platform for Sustainable Performance in Education, represented by QS – World University Ranking and University of Venice supported the integration of sustainable indicators into traditional rankings and subsequently into all University agendas . It is imperative that Universities need to evolve their leadership and operation to ensure success in a disrupted climate.

This can be expressed in many forms: student numbers, research and commercialization, community involvement but they all relate to the performance of a University per se. Navigating change is difficult but in the education industry, this is even more challenging.

The SMEd of HigherEd

The fundamental relationship that exists between the drivers of employees and how it translates into a University’s eventual business performance can be examined from the viewpoint of the 3 components.

If one is not already a well-established cream of the crop University and does not have a sizable sum of endowments – chances are that they will have to struggle to keep afloat. It will then become clear that what follows is a roadmap where Universities have to derive its strategic directions (S) into key actions that are required to succeed. And accordingly, these are expressed as a series of measurable items (M) to drive employees (Ed) towards desirable behavior.

I call this the S-M-Ed of Quality in Organizations.

A good set of metrics that is derived in accordance to the organization’s strategic direction can make an impact in strengthening employee relationship which in turn not only add value but also drive organizational effectiveness as a whole.

Employee drivers are related to belief in senior leadership and pride in working for the company to fuel a culture of identity and high performance.

This article and most of its part, attempt to investigate the relationship that exists between the 3 key components and how they serve to drive institutional sustainability in a University. While I do acknowledge the benefits of the methodological system, these benefits could easily be outweighed by the managerial problems it causes. That said, this tripartite coalition does present 2 specific issues of concern:

1. Metric is a quantifiable measure of business performance – it usually reflects what organizations need instead of what is meaningful for employees. It cannot be disputed that setting KPIs bring about rigor to the management of institution; it does set a guideline as to how well each and every one of our employees are performing. We are at a point in time that demands more efficiency and productivity than ever. But no productivity is sustainable if it is not inherent in employees. If employees do not identify with the metrics, then the metrics does not fully serve its purpose. There is a famous saying that employees are the wheels on which the cart rolls. The bottom line would be metrics are seen merely as a bunch of numbers that you either hit or miss – it does not represent what employees desire. Leaders should be available to help employees understand the rationale behind these metrics and in instill an imperative to improving and driving readiness to embrace these metrics. A good set of metrics should be built on mutual understanding between leaders and employees. Unfortunately, current metrics are heavily leaned on financial incentives – this form of rewards while able to achieve some forms of gratification but they do not sustain. A carrot-and-stick approach can only be that effective – what drives employees are different in kind from what pauses.

2. Metrics usually spell out the minimum baseline for employees and it assumes that the drive to performance is inherent in employees. It is natural that people work depending on what they are measured on and it forces organizations to tighten its management process and address its performance issues. Yes, why should I do this if it does not contribute to my KPI? True drivers of employee behavior cannot be assumed, it cannot be achieved by a mechanical approach by manipulating employee’s commitment. Simply can’t be forced down another’s throat. Motivating employees is an enduring challenge, even understanding what hit and what misses is a mystery in itself. True driver of excellence should come from within. There must be a sense of identification, followed by the want to improve and the sustained effort to continue.

None of these says that KPI should not be used; just that a set of KPIs must be purposeful. In fact, KPIs remain critical -they are the means by which employees can understand the organization’s executive strategy via a clearly articulated steering and control mechanism that in imperative to achieve the strategy.

In many cases what is lacking is not so much a goal; but rather clear navigational paths with autonomy and opportunities for mastery. In many cases, employees do not only seek approval from others but employees need to feel a sense of worth. They need to feel that they are doing something that matters, and that they can do it well – and be of service to the organization with which they identify.

Are we measuring what really matters?

Drawing from experiences of involvement in the planning and delivery educational initiatives to meet organizational strategic goal, the following appear to be key areas that deserve careful attention and must be cascaded properly to the employees:

Quantifiable Result Areas

• This refer to specific jobs that are crucial to and has a positive impact on the institution’s overall standing should they be achieved.
• From an academic viewpoint, this can be further broken into the following major areas: (a) Programmes’ Quality that ideally are endorsed by Professional accreditation and continuously reviewed for enhancement, (b) Student projection must be balanced with estimation of Graduating student, (c) Facilities Support, (d) Research Centres together with the activities, expected research input and corresponding output, and (e) Staff Development expressed in dimensions of teaching, research supervision, consultancy and grants, publication, administration and involvement in professional bodies.

Non-quantifiable Result Areas

• This refer to those in which the employees are to take complete ownership and is aligned with the quantifiable result areas which in turn is mapped collectively into the organization’s strategic direction.
• Some of these could include but certainly not limited to maintaining standards of research, ensuring prudent and cost effectiveness in spending including being members and attending trainings that are of high quality.

Proper identification of key focus areas form the backbone on which suitable metrics can be derived.

Being productive does not necessarily bring about the kind of behavioral change that motivates and drives employee.

While many articles stresses on the importance of communicating to employees it does not mean automatic acceptance. It also depends on how it is measured to induce the correct investment from employee.

Ultimately institutions need to decide on the kind of culture that unites or divides and to optimize that, it has to be from the work done by the employees.

It is about designing the employee experience also emphasized here; creating a workplace that employees want to work.